Morality of Homosexuality

Ilias Ahmad said:

No comment

Click to expand...

You should have gone that route earlier in the thread.

darkendless said:

This thread is not asking for the quran, in my opinion my physics text book sitting next to me is more holy, and truthful Nature has not been designed by God, nature is the evolution of cells, over a long period of time.
Whats wrong with people sleeping with animals, if they want to do it why shouldn't nthey be allowed to? As long as it doesn't hurt the animal theres nothing wrong with it, just it is unusual in society, like homosexuality was a short while ago.
Thankfully some of society has warmed to homosexuality, allowing people to be free to follow their heart, rather than binding them to rediculous rules that carry death (loving God right ).
If you don't like homosexuals, stay in an Arabic country where it will take a lot longer for them to crawl out from under the rocks they live in.
I just hope one day a homosexual person saves your life, then maybe then you will appreciate that they are normal loving people who are having their rights squashed by ignorant traditionalists.

Click to expand...

Actually, if you live in a country on the side of the allies in WW II, a homosexual person probably has saved your life--Alan Turing.

One thing that I notice about people who argue that homosexuality is immoral is that their moral code is usually based on their understanding of their religious book. It's kind of "whatever God says, is right." There's rarely any underlying value to their morality that are shared with others who do not subscribe to their religion. What I'm thinking of is ideas such as compassion and honesty. For me, these are the foundation of any moral code. I would think they would provide a common basis on which we could discuss these issues. Instead what I find is that there's a whole bunch of people who seem to have something they call morality, which is not in any way based on these ideas. Frankly this was rather shocking to me.

This is not only Muslims, but Christians, Mormons, etc. As soon as they want to say that homosexuality is bad, they usually say they believe it's bad cuz God says so. When asked to name some moral value that we have in common, they try to advance some argument that reproductive sex is better because less selfish. Which is of course ridiculous. Reproductive sex can be more or less moral than non-reproductive sex, depending on whether it is done responsibly, kindly, honestly, and so forth. Occasionally they will allege that homosexuality is unnatural, which may be the silliest argument of all. And usually someone of lesser experience will say something along the lines of "If homosexuality is permitted, why not murder." This is even dumber than the argument of unnaturalness's, and I doubt that anyone makes it twice.

Autodidact said:

One thing that I notice about people who argue that homosexuality is immoral is that their moral code is usually based on their understanding of their religious book.

Click to expand...

I think it is more of the cultural mores they were raised in. The book is just a kind of figurehead justifying it. But, in my opinion, the anti-homosexual agenda in America is primarily cultural.

The morality is based on traditional gender roles, I think. It's not necessarily the sex; there isn't such a huge outcry over things like "A Shot at Love With Tila." Now if it were a show featuring a bunch of guys trying to get Johnny Depp, I think there would be a bigger problem.

What's the difference? The differing roles of men and women.

Autodidact said:

You don't seem to have a problem with people who call other people evil, immoral, sick, defective pederasts. That doesn't seem to bother you for some reason. For example, Ilias Ahmad said:
gay people are the most immoral and vile of creation under the heavens
Did you think it appropriate to rebuke or reply to him in any way? How would you feel if I said:
Muslims are the most immoral and vile of creation under the heavens? Might it bother you just a little.
It seems that like most theists, Muslims also have trouble doing unto others as they would have done unto them.

Click to expand...

Dear, you already called my religion barbaric and primitive; in response to my uncivil and disrespectful post:

not4me said:

Really?!! Are you trying to play games here?
Because if you're, I am out.

Moreover, there is no doubt that insemination by a donor other than the husband is a more serious crime and detestable offense than adoption, for the child born of such insemination incorporates in itself the result of adoption - the introduction of an alien element into the lineage - in conjunction with the offence of adultery, which is abhorrent both to the divinely revealed laws and to upright human nature.
Artificial Insemination from an Islamic Perspective - IslamonLine.net - Ask The Scholar

Click to expand...

I think this gives me very good reasons to attack you personally, right? I told you, it's very easy.

One thing that I notice about people who argue that homosexuality is immoral is that their moral code is usually based on their understanding of their religious book. It's kind of "whatever God says, is right." There's rarely any underlying value to their morality that are shared with others who do not subscribe to their religion. What I'm thinking of is ideas such as compassion and honesty. For me, these are the foundation of any moral code. I would think they would provide a common basis on which we could discuss these issues. Instead what I find is that there's a whole bunch of people who seem to have something they call morality, which is not in any way based on these ideas. Frankly this was rather shocking to me.

Click to expand...

I agree.

James

Dear, you already called my religion barbaric and primitive; in response to my uncivil and disrespectful post:

Click to expand...

Maybe that's because of your "uncivil and disrespectful post" as you so nicely phrased it.

I think this gives me very good reasons to attack you personally, right? I told you, it's very easy.

Click to expand...

I disagree, but without arguing that point, you never answered the question:

You don't seem to have a problem with people who call other people evil, immoral, sick, defective pederasts. That doesn't seem to bother you for some reason. For example, Ilias Ahmad said:
gay people are the most immoral and vile of creation under the heavens
Did you think it appropriate to rebuke or reply to him in any way? How would you feel if I said:
Muslims are the most immoral and vile of creation under the heavens? Might it bother you just a little.
It seems that like most theists, Muslims also have trouble doing unto others as they would have done unto them.

Click to expand...

James

not4me said:

I think this gives me very good reasons to attack you personally, right?

Click to expand...

Really?
So when you dis a group of people said dissing gives them the right to attack you personally?
That is what you are saying, right?
Forum rules be damned, right?

Mestemia said:

Really?
So when you dis a group of people said dissing gives them the right to attack you personally?
That is what you are saying, right?
Forum rules be damned, right?

Click to expand...

Nope this was not my point but quite the opposite.

Ilias Ahmad said:

No comment

Click to expand...

That's probably the most rational thing I've heard you say yet.

Guitar's Cry said:

I think it is more of the cultural mores they were raised in. The book is just a kind of figurehead justifying it. But, in my opinion, the anti-homosexual agenda in America is primarily cultural.

The morality is based on traditional gender roles, I think. It's not necessarily the sex; there isn't such a huge outcry over things like "A Shot at Love With Tila." Now if it were a show featuring a bunch of guys trying to get Johnny Depp, I think there would be a bigger problem.

What's the difference? The differing roles of men and women.

Click to expand...

I think you're right. The real give-away is that in reality lesbianism is not prohibited, but they're opposed to it anyway.

not4me said:

Dear, you already called my religion barbaric and primitive; in response to my uncivil and disrespectful post:

Click to expand...

So you're not planning to rebuke Ilias Ahmad, then?

I think this gives me very good reasons to attack you personally, right? I told you, it's very easy.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't say each and every member of your religion, but the basic concept, as expressed by most of its members I have met, absolutely. If it's any comfort to you, I feel the same way about Christianity and Judaism, and I was raised as a Jew. The whole idea of believing in an invisible war-God because you were born into His tribe, organizing your life around a particular set of ritual taboos that the holy-man says your tribe's God requires strikes me as extremely primitive.

Soo... are we still talking about homosexuality?

Poor homos. They get so much crap to deal with.

Guitar's Cry said:

I think it is more of the cultural mores they were raised in. The book is just a kind of figurehead justifying it. But, in my opinion, the anti-homosexual agenda in America is primarily cultural.

The morality is based on traditional gender roles, I think. It's not necessarily the sex; there isn't such a huge outcry over things like "A Shot at Love With Tila." Now if it were a show featuring a bunch of guys trying to get Johnny Depp, I think there would be a bigger problem.

What's the difference? The differing roles of men and women.

Click to expand...

Well yes prejudice against homosexuals does come from cultural influences. But even those have their roots and those roots are found in religion. It is unnatural so to speak for a person to be prejudice towards homosexuals that is something that has to be taught and for it to be so wide spread you need a powerful enough agent as the cause. While religion may not be the solo cause of prejudice towards homosexuals it is undoubtedly a major contributor. Not only does it initiate such ideas it also substantiates them as true and allows the unmoral behavior to be taken as a moral behavior by the followers of these religions. A simple glance through this thread will tell you that morally speaking without religion a view that homosexuality is immoral can not be sustained by a rational mind. Without religion in this case, reason would have broken downs these walls with much greater easy.

I believe that the ancient Greeks viewed homosexuality as a "higher" form of sexual expression precisely because it is not reproductive, and so less allied to the lower or beastly nature.

Another attitude that I often see from the "homosexuality is immoral" side of the argument is a dichotomy about sex, that sex is either for procreation or fun, and there's something wrong with the latter.

As an aside, I take strong issue with the idea that fun is bad, and that doing things for fun is bad. On the contrary, like Dr. Suess, I hold that Fun is Good.

But what bothers me more is that these people seem completely ignorant of the idea of physical intimacy as an expression of mutual love. My own experience of this is that it is the most beautiful, the finest part of life. There is no way to experience this profound kind of personal relationship and confuse it with just "fun." Anyone who has experienced it knows to the depth of their soul that it's much more than that. So what's going on with these people?
-Have they never experienced a true physical exchange of mutual love?
-Are they oblivious to the distinction between our deepest and most beautiful form of human interaction and plain old fun?
-Are they dishonest?
-Something else?

Anti-gays: can you explain?

Autodidact said:

And there you have it. The answer to the OP is: No.

Click to expand...

That was not a" No " dear , i was simply trying to say that when people get their " instinct nature " altered.., when their inner warning bells stop ringing , No amount of Reason will work for them.......It's what i call : The Innate logic....The Innate Morality Code by which we were created....

maro said:

That was not a" No " dear , i was simply trying to say that when people get their " instinct nature " altered.., when their inner warning bells stop ringing , No amount of Reason will work for them.......It's what i call : The Innate logic....The Innate Morality Code by which we were created....

Click to expand...

Is that what makes some people tell lies about other groups of people, and discriminate against them?

Autodidact said:

Another attitude that I often see from the "homosexuality is immoral" side of the argument is a dichotomy about sex, that sex is either for procreation or fun, and there's something wrong with the latter.

As an aside, I take strong issue with the idea that fun is bad, and that doing things for fun is bad. On the contrary, like Dr. Suess, I hold that Fun is Good.

But what bothers me more is that these people seem completely ignorant of the idea of physical intimacy as an expression of mutual love. My own experience of this is that it is the most beautiful, the finest part of life. There is no way to experience this profound kind of personal relationship and confuse it with just "fun." Anyone who has experienced it knows to the depth of their soul that it's much more than that. So what's going on with these people?
-Have they never experienced a true physical exchange of mutual love?
-Are they oblivious to the distinction between our deepest and most beautiful form of human interaction and plain old fun?
-Are they dishonest?
-Something else?

Anti-gays: can you explain?

Click to expand...

the other thing that i notice is that those on the side of "homosexuality is immoral" only focus on gay sex, like you said, the whole fun versus procreation argument. erm, last time i checked, relationships, gay or straight, were not just about sex.