The Immorality of Pre-marital sex, Extra-marital sex, Homosexuality, and Promiscuousness in General (theist)

[mball1297]

Originally Posted by tariqkhwaja

Remember the claim here is not that one should become a monk. Nor is it that one should let his/her carnal desires overtake the self.

I am not saying block the water from flowing completely. Nor am I saying we should let the water flood the city. No, I am saying that we should direct the water into rivers and streams so that it becomes a source of irrigation.

Promiscousness is an act of pursuit of pleasure. It does not lead to happiness but only leads to want for greater forms of pleasure. Homosexuality (as I was arguing in the other thread) is the same: an act of pursuit for pleasure. Marraige and through it the birth of children is an act of enhancing the value of "the family unit" and a means for the evolution of humanity.

Saying it over and over again is not going to make it true. You give absolutely no reason to believe what you are claiming.

[doppelgänger]

Originally Posted by tariqkhwaja

So then enlighten me. Tell me please exactly which sentence is without knowledge. Which without experience or which is without humility.

Is not the mere 50 year experience of the Western world enough for us where the slow "liberation" of women has led the Western world to want and legalize the greater pursuits for pleasure? Is not the Western world reducing limits on the pursuit of pleasure? And do not people, still, want more? And does it not occur to you that no matter how much you have it will never be enough?

Note that by "you" here I mean the Western world though the trend is very much taking hold in the East as well.

What are you talking about?

[.lava]

i think 'wanting more' is not unexpected from ego. it wants more. because it can never be satisfied. if society supports (& uses) this weakness, of course numbers would grow. it is a weakness. giving into your weakness is not freedom, it is slavery. imo

i agree with you Tariq.



.

[mball1297]

Originally Posted by .lava

i think 'wanting more' is not unexpected from ego. it wants more. because it can never be satisfied. if society supports (& uses) this weakness, of course numbers would grow. it is a weakness. giving into your weakness is not freedom, it is slavery. imo

i agree with you Tariq.



.

But, why is it a weakness? How does it harm anyone? A weakness tends to be something that harms someone in some way. How does homosexuality harm anyone?

[MysticSang'ha]

Hmmmm, I'm just shooting from the hip here:

Man cannot have unlimited and unrestricted pleasure however he may desire it. All he can do is to swap certain values and options. A society which seeks to escape responsibility or the realities of life with the help of opiates and drugs; a society which is obsessed by sex, vain excitement and exhilaration; a society where the tastes are wilfully perverted to suit an artificially created market for new instruments and toys of pleasure which are fit only to create excitement and thirst for more; a market masterminded by powerful syndicates whose sole purpose is to amass wealth; such a society chooses all this at the cost of nobler human values, peace of mind and security in a society as a whole. You cannot possess both simultaneously. You cannot have your cake and eat it.

The emphasis of Islam is exactly the opposite. Pleasure indeed—but not at the cost of peace of mind and the security of society as a whole. All such tendencies, which if unchecked, are likely to lead to a gradual disintegration of family life and promote selfishness, irresponsibility, vulgarity, crime and violence, are strongly

discouraged.

Not sure about this. Pleasure is all around us for us to decide whether or not we want or need it, and grasping at sensory pleasures in order to maintain a certain illusion of temporary thrills, or running away from them in pursuit of austerity......it's like saying that the opposite of dysfunction is, well, dysfunction.

The climates created by the two philosophies are poles apart.

Yes, they are. How about some middle ground, then, between the two poles?

It astounds me how some people believe that by raising ambitions or giving free reign to desires in a society, they can ever hopefully promise peace of mind. No society in the world, however economically sound it may be, can support unlimited and unbridled generation of lustful desires.

You are correct. But this isn't about supporting the demand for desire. It's allowing the freedom to have them available at all.

Even in the richest societies of the world, there are always haves and have-nots. Those who are deprived of the most basic amenities of life make a much larger section of the society than the comparatively smaller number of those who can afford to pay for what they like.

Even that is questionable because it seems that with the growth of wealth, desires also rise and perhaps even the richest cannot fully realise all their dreams. But the case of the comparatively poorer majority is worse. They cannot even have access to the basic amenities of life, not to speak of the luxuries the affluent society can afford. It is the poor with whose emotions and desires modern media plays havoc.

Day in, day out it brings to their squalid dwellings, rosy images of a glorious lifestyle with palatial homes, fabulous gardens, fleets of luxury cars, helicopters, private planes and an army of attendants. The lifestyles of Hollywood and Beverly Hills with revelries, dances, merrymaking parties, or the life in casinos, gambling houses, or all that soap operas can conjure up, are temptations to which the poorest have access. Yet few, even amongst the richest, can ever dream of achieving this heaven on earth. Such people would most certainly lose interest in their poor coarse surroundings. The home and hearth would no longer have any appeal to them. Lack of culture and civilisation stand juxtaposed to this rosy vision, and, in this context, the realities of their own life begin to lose all meaning. If this were the ultimate

achievement of a society fed on vain pleasures and unreal visions, warmth and the peace of home and hearth all become increasingly illusionary. Then there would be nothing left for them to live for in the future.

And yet this all has to do with sexuality.........how? although Matt mentioned this earlier, too.

[Sunstone]

Originally Posted by tariqkhwaja

Is not the mere 50 year experience of the Western world enough for us where the slow "liberation" of women has led the Western world to want and legalize the greater pursuits for pleasure? Is not the Western world reducing limits on the pursuit of pleasure? And do not people, still, want more? And does it not occur to you that no matter how much you have it will never be enough?

What's going on in the West is much more complicated than that.

[.lava]

Originally Posted by mball1297

But, why is it a weakness? How does it harm anyone? A weakness tends to be something that harms someone in some way. How does homosexuality harm anyone?

it is not particularly about homosexuality. it is not about harming others either. people tend to ask for more. we do that because we think having more would make us happier. but it does not. then we ask more and more.

i've known a man years ago. he is in the top 10000 list (he is among the richest people, i mean) he was one of a kind indeed! very young looking at his 40s and very handsome guy. once he described himself to me like this:

'i am 50% sexual maniac, 40% animal and 10% human" i did not know he was being honest though. anyways..he was into women very much yet he did not believe in love at all. every female was a toy to him. he plays, gets bored then passes her on to his friend. in time he started losing interest in women. not that he was gay or anything. but he became interested in gay people. because he took any woman he liked as if each girl was a product to be upgraded. how could a person upgrade it? when it comes to that point, asking more turns into asking something new. gay thing was new to him.

but again, what i said in my first reply is about human ego. ego tricks people by saying 'wanna be happy get more, get the better one.' an unfortunately this is supported by media and publicities. sure it is a weakness. one can't be happy with what he has. grass is greener somewhere else. instead of enjoying his present moment, he looks for new stuff, excitement, addicted to adrenalin.

for the same reason there are many people who's fat. they can't get enough. therefor some people are work like ants, they think more money would bring more happiness.

less is more


.

[.lava]

Originally Posted by Sunstone

What's going on in the West is much more complicated than that.

i do believe that Sunstone. it is much more complicated.



.

[gnomon]

People in the West grossly misunderstand the Islamic social system of purdah seen as the segregation between the two sexes.

Well there's your problem.

Yeah, too much of a good thing and whatnot. Age old wisdom from many cultures. Hell, you can kill yourself from the overconsumption of water. Obsession can be a dangerous thing. Be it sex, drugs, gambling, the sexual nature of other people......

Don't really know what this has to do with Islam as the author from the link is a philosopher of Islam. As I said. Such concepts of temperance are not unique to any culture or religion.

However, I do agree with those who say that homosexuality does not belong with the other categories listed. Homosexuality, all sexuality, is a state of being. It is not an act. Seriously. Are we supposed to tell people to stop being so gay. Or is it that just being gay and possessing the smallest desire for sexual fulfillment is immoral. That's just absurd.

[darkendless]

Originally Posted by tariqkhwaja

Assalamualaikum.

The following is taken from pages 86 to 88 of the book http://www.alislam.org/library/books...raryIssues.pdf by Mirza Tahir Ahmad, the 4th Caliph of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community. I only pray that the time everyone spends on reading the whole passage quoted here only gives the reader the thirst to read more from the link.

The only problem with it is you and people like you who allow religion to form your point-of-view for you. If you dont want pre-marital sex, don't do it, and let the "sinners" enjoy their pleasure.
If you don't want pleasure, don't have sex altogether. I fail to see how any of this is immoral just because it is immoral from a religious point-of-view.