Whats Wrong With Homosexuality

[Younes 202]

I don't need to see the video and I believe you just because I am straight and have been approach dozens of times. If homosexuality goes unchecked they will stomp down doors to get straight people just like they tried in Sodom when Lot's visitors struck them blind.

 

If somebody does not believe in the story of Sodom, i.e. somebody like Russell, then they may look at homosexuality in ancient Greece: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Greece

 

Lessons to be learned: homosexuality is not simply something you are born with it. You can be conditioned to be one.

[Younes 202]

I am out by the way. I don't find this topic too interesting.

[bint Ali......ÈäÊ Úáì 1]

Hi bint Ali......ÈäÊ Úáì

 

Yes I understand that ‘god does not like it’ is sufficient for you; that you need no more than that to object to homosexuality. 

 

 

The word ‘Natural’ in the English language has a very specific meaning and the idea that it means ‘whatever god want’s’ is not it.  Natural means what nature does without us.  We see homosexuality in nature all the time, it’s quite common, so by the English definition of that word homosexuality is natural.  I think you need to find another word that captures what you are trying to express here because English speakers will get confused when you wrap the will of god in the word natural.

 

I’m not suggesting that turning everyone homosexual is an appropriate way of reducing our population but the complaint was made by posters here that that was a serious flaw in the homosexual lifestyle.  As you have just pointed out, in agreement with what I said, even heterosexual couples can choose not to have babies.  Does Islam have a problem with contraception as the Christians do by the way?

 

Russell

Yes exactly. So I meant to say that reason was enough for us, so we refrain from that. And I meant to say that is how we define nature in Islam, not in English language. To us what Allah likes and what Allah dislikes matter the most.

And if a non Muslim is homosexual that actually is not our problem in sharia. Our problem would be if a Muslim does that. I don't know about what the other posters had said before. But in my opinion homosexuality is a bit gross, and is pretty much against human nature.

Russell I suppose your real problem is with the sharia in Islam. Maybe your reall problem is with the punishments in Islam to those who go against Allah 's limits.

[russell 13]

Hi Ala’adin

 

I think faithfulness is a critical part of this discussion because safety was one of the claims for heterosexual sex and the dangers presented for homosexual sex yet there are far more pressing issues for human safety.  Faithfulness or its lack is a far stronger determinant of safety than homosexuality or heterosexuality.  The same is true of unprotected and protected sex, the lack of protection is a far greater danger than if the sex is homosexual or heterosexual yet again the people here focus on homosexuality as if these complaints are points against it yet they do not stand up when you look into them.  People here don’t complain about the real problems here, dangerous sex.  Dangerous sex is unprotected sex, it’s sex with a risky partner and last on the list is homosexual or heterosexual but the difference here is actually very small when you take all the other factors into account.

 

If you’re only claim is that ‘god does not like it’ then there’s no arguing with that, I’ll leave you to your beliefs so long as you don’t try to force them on me.  If you really want to ensure the safety of your fellow man then there are things you need to focus on far more critically than homosexuality such as unsafe sex of any kind.

 

Russell

[russell 13]

Hi Younes

 

I’d pretty much have to agree with the links you posted, the question asked was “I’m gay but I like a straight guy HOW DO I TURN HIM GAY” and the answer given was you can’t so yes I’d have to agree.  I said that Gay’s may look at straights as attractive but unless they are gay then they would not be interested in taking it further because a straight man would not be interested in sex with them or in the sort so things they want in sex.  So that fits in with what I said earlier.  Women could also be attracted to a gay man but again he’s not likely to be interested in taking it further because she can’t offer him the things he’d want sexually.

 

The guy who responded that he and his mates were straight but they get into sex because they are good buddies is deluding himself, he’s actually bi and in the closet about it.

 

If you are worried that a gay man may show your children that they are gay too then that may be a risk but they were gay before he talked to them and just unaware of it.  Quite a few gay’s, in years gone by, have been married and even produced children before they worked out what they really were or before they worked up the courage to live the lifestyle that made them truly happy.

 

In the end your separating your children from gay information means they are less likely to work out that they are gay if they are so they are more likely to be unhappy.  Is unhappiness really a good aim?

 

Gay and straight both flaunt their sexuality and sexual behaviours in public, that’s not an exclusively gay thing in fact it’s far more common with young heterosexuals than with homosexuals in my community.

 

Booze and drugs may be way’s to influence people to let their hair down its true.  I can’t speak for the effects of drugs but alcohol lets the real person out, if you are really straight then you’ll be straight when drunk, if you are mean then the really mean you may come out when you are drunk.  If you want to really know who someone is alcohol will let their guards down so you’ll see them.  But a drunk straight man won’t turn gay but a bi or gay but in the closet man may be open to suggestion.  Again the tendency had to have been there before he got drunk or it wouldn’t come out when he was drunk, that’s not how alcohol works.

 

I can’t see mannerisms being a serious issue, that’s starting to sound very homophobic.  I’ve met straight men who like pink jumpers for example, it was even a fashion here once, but that did not make them gay.

 

The point of my morality test is that it is not subjective though we don’t have good access to the objective measure of it at this stage.  Happiness is an objective state of a physical system we call a brain.  We know that we can see many moods with fMRI scanners and happiness is one of them but we can’t see it very clearly yet so that will take time and it’s slow, expensive and tricky to measure.  At the moment you need more indirect and yes subjective measures to work out how happy people are so it is messy but at least we are all agreed that people exist and that they want to be happy so we are agreed on the basis for humanistic morality.

 

Russell

[russell 13]

Hi Redeemed

 

I know you claim not to be homophobic but just read what you just wrote?

If homosexuality goes unchecked they will stomp down doors to get straight people just like they tried in Sodom when Lot's visitors struck them blind.

 

If guy’s keep hitting on you then maybe you put out a gay vibe.  Many of the most rabid gay haters turn out to be gay as they really work out their sexuality.  As for me maybe I’m just ugly but the gay’s I know have never shown any interest.  Still as the posts that Younes linked above showed, gay’s don’t want straight people.  They may want to convert some particular people to gay then they’d be keen but they don’t want them straight.  And as the other posters pointed out, you can’t turn someone gay.

 

Russell

[russell 13]

Hi Younes

 

I’ve read a great deal about ancient homosexuality and the link you posted pretty much supports my view of it. It wasn’t a common thing in society but it was restricted to the elite few in Greece for example.  As for being conditioned to it I don’t think we know enough about what happened there to say that they took normal males and converted them to homosexuality.  It was a position of influence and power to be part of such a relationship with someone of high standing so the reason these men got involved may well not have been sexual though that is part of the package but even if you hated that people will do a lot to get power and that path lead to wealth and power and for a young person that’s attractive.  I think, even today, that you could probably some straight men to take part in homosexual acts for sufficient reward.

 

Sodom and Gomorra was another thing entirely, here they were not just talking about homosexuality but a rabid and unlikely form of rape mixed with homosexuality.  You are right that I see it as a very unlikely story.

 

Russell

[russell 13]

Hi bint Ali......ÈäÊ Úáì

 

As I said we need to find another word for what you are referring to as nature but meaning ‘what god want’s’ because that is not what the word means in English and it does cause some confusion here when you misuse a word like that.

 

I agree that some of what homosexuality is about is indeed gross but that makes you and me straight.  If we like it we’d be homosexual.  There are plenty of things that some heterosexuals get up to that I want nothing to do with, these things too are gross to me but that does not make them wrong I just want them to keep those things in their bedrooms.

 

I can see the problem if someone wants to be a muslim and they are homosexual to me that’s illogical.  Catholic homosexuals who demand that the church marries them are likewise illogical because that is explicitly against the church’s teachings.  To me it makes sense that you follow a faith knowing that it has rules, if you want to flaunt those rules then you have a choice between your actions and the faith.  To me it makes sense that they should just leave the faith but given that I believe that all of these faiths were written by men I can’t see any real problem if they want to reform them either.  But they can’t logically choose to stay in a faith that says that their lifestyle is wrong, change the faith, leave it or drop the lifestyle.

 

I don’t actually know much about the punishments in Islam, from the anecdotal stuff I’ve heard they are very sever but that may be distorted so I wouldn’t trust it.

 

 

i love hijab......and there is nothing you can do about it.

Did you know that I would support your right to wear the hijab if that is your wish?  There are a few exceptions such as banks were security could be compromised but other than that.  I support the rights of the Scotsman to wear a kilt, the aboriginal to wear his body paint and for you to wear your hijab so long as it is your personal choice.  I object to anyone who would force you to wear it or not wear it against your will.  To me I’m guessing that being forced to walk around in public without it would be much like someone forcing me to walk around without my pants.  I’ve been raised to find that uncomfortable and I assume you may feel the same way about your hijab.

 

Russell

[Faati 7]

SIMPLE:

 

God created ADAM and EVE...

Not Adam and Steve!

[russell 13]

Hi Faati

 

So you don’t actually have an argument is that what you are trying to say here?  You do know that, as an atheist, the idea that there is any such thing as a god isn’t something you can rely on in a discussion with me.  Want to prove there is a god  first please go ahead and try but until then you have a problem.

 

And that’s before you even get started on all the real evidence we have that directly contradicts your claim.

 

Russell

[Faati 7]

Russel,

 

No, you cannot prove the existence of God to an atheist. The reason is
simple. Whenever you present any evidence to an atheist, they can either say
"there's a scientific explanation for this", or "there's no scientific
explanation now, but at some point in the future, science will have advanced
sufficiently to be able to supply an explanation". These two options are
available to the atheist, no matter how compelling the evidence might be.

For example, suppose God wished to make His presence unambiguously known to
everyone in the world. So, he decided to paint large multi-coloured semi-circles
across the sky, in order to tell everyone that there's an intelligence "up
there" who can create such things. (Note that He only does this on days when
rain is falling and the sun is shining). Immediately, scientists started seeking
an explanation for these semi-circles; one that doesn't require any kind of
Divine Agency. Eventually, they came up with an explanation - something about
light being reflected off the backs of raindrops, and splitting into separate
colours as it passes through those raindrops. And a very convincing explanation
it was, too. And suddenly, what was once a "miracle" now fits entirely within
the realm of physics.

My point is, that for atheists to convert to Islam (or any other religion),
they need to encounter a phenomenon that they believe is outside the scope or
ability of science. This will prompt them to look for other world views. If they
are blessed, they will chance across Islam, and be sufficiently motivated to
learn more. The question for the atheist is "how great a miracle would you have
to observe, to be convinced that some Divine Agency is responsible for it?".

[russell 13]

Hi Faati

 

Yes it’s true that we don’t know everything so there are plenty of areas in which science can’t provide the answers right now but there are things which science says simply can’t be.  In other words science presents us with a very limited set of plausible scenarios for this universe.  Anything outside those would disprove science.  Any such would count as a miracle.  No such evidence has ever been found.

 

You complain that we can simply say ‘science will find the answers one day’ no matter how compelling the evidence is but that is not true.  To be compelling the evidence you present must simply be of a kind that science can never explain.  Humans living in a life hostile universe would be an example.  We find ourselves on a planet that can support life and we find ourselves suited to our niche which is just what you’d expect if evolutionary theory were true but god would have to have more options, he would have to be able to step outside what is possible with our scientific understandings but he doesn’t.  He acts as if he’s not there and the invisible and the non-existent look a great deal alike in my experience.

 

Your rainbow example is one that is oft considered.  Dawkins discusses ‘Unweaving The Rainbow’ in a book of that title.  Yes we take some of the mystery out of this world when we understand how rainbows are formed but we also learn that the universe is expanding and that for most of its demonstrable 13+ billion year history the same elements we see around us behave in the same way as they do in our labs.  That one insight, that light is composed of a frequency spectra, taught us so much more than just where rainbows come from.  Do you want us to remain ignorant of so much data that we can find out there if we try to understand this universe?  Is ignorance really a good thing?

 

It’s not just about ‘they believe’ science is very specific what is and what is not possible.  Science limits this world to a very narrow set of plausible scenarios and it leaves open far more options that science says are impossible.  Any of these things occurring would count as a miracle.  That’s one of the strengths of science, it’s falsifiable.  Every theory individually and the entire enterprise of science is falsifiable thought the latter would take more evidence.

 

In the end we are trying to explain how the massive order we see around us appeared from simple beginnings.  Science shows us how that can happen through simple natural principals and it does so very successfully.  Religion avoids the question by stipulating that huge complexity pre-existed and created all the order we see.  That’s an enormous amount of baggage to overcome if you want to look at this rationally and in the end it basically avoids the problem rather than answering it.  The next question has to be where did god get his complexity from?  Yes I’ve heard the non-answer “he always had it” before but that is rationally unsatisfying.

 

Russell

[Faati 7]

RUSSELL,

 

Just because God can do complex things does not make him complex, it seems to me
that you confuse ability with nature. In other words, just because God can
do complex things (such as creating the universe) it does not make His nature
complex.So it stands to reason that God is the simplest, and therefore the best,
explanation.

 

Francis Bacon, the famous philosopher, has rightly said that a little knowledge
of science makes man an atheist, but an in-depth study of science makes him a
believer in God.

 

Since you insist there is no God, please explain why?

[Faati 7]

Russell....

 

A little story I would like to share with you:

 

Long ago in the city of Baghdad, there was a Muslim empire. On one side of
the River Tigris were the royal palaces and on the other side was the city. The
Muslims were gathered in the Royal Palace when an athiest approached them. He
said to them, ‘I don’t believe in God, there cannot be a God, you cannot hear
Him or see Him, you’re wasting your time! Bring me your best debator and I will
debate this issue with him.’

The best debator at the time was Imam Abu Hanifah Rahimullah. A messenger
from amongst the Muslims was sent over the River Tigris to the city, where Abu
Hanifah Rahimullah was, in order to tell him about the athiest who was awaiting
him. On crossing the River Tigris, the messenger conveyed the message to Abu
Hanifah Rahimullah saying, ‘Oh Abu Hanifah, an athiest is waiting for you, to
debate you, please come!’ Abu Hanifah Rahimullah told the messeneger that he
would be on his way.

The messenger went over the River Tigris once again and to the Royal Palaces,
where everyone including the athiest awaited the arrival of Abu Hanifah
Rahimullah. It was sunset at the time and one hour had passed, but Abu Hanifah
Rahimullah still hadn’t arrived. Another hour had passed, but still there was no
sign of him. The Muslims started to become tense and worried about his late
arrival. They did not want the athiest to think that they were too scared to
debate him, yet they did not want to take up the challenge themselves as Abu
Hanifah Rahimullah was the best of Debators from amongst the Muslims. Another
hour passed, and suddenly the athiest started laughing and said, ‘ Your best
debator is too scared! He knows he’s wrong, he is too frightened to come and
debate with me. I gurantee he will not turn up today.’

The Muslims increased in apprehension and eventually it had passed midnight,
and the athiest had a smile on his face. The clock ticked on, and finally Abu
Hanifah Rahimullah had arrived. The Muslims inquired about his lateness and
remarked, ‘Oh Abu Hanifah, a messenger sent for you hours ago, and you arrive
now, explain your lateness to us.’

Abu Hanifah Rahimullah apologises for his lateness and begins to explain,
while the atheist listens to his story.

‘Once the messenger delivered the message to me, I began to make my way to
the River Tigris, and on reaching the river bank I realised there was no boat,
in order to cross the river. It was getting dark, and I looked around, there was
no boat anywhere nor was there a navigator or a sailor in order for me to cross
the river to get to the Royal Palaces. I continued to look around for a boat, as
I did not want the athiest to think I was running away and did not want to
debate with him.

I was standing on the river bank looking for a navigator or a boat when
something caught my attention in the middle of the river. I looked forward, and
to my amazement I saw planks of wood rising to the surface from the sea bed. I
was shocked, amazed, I couldn’t believe what I saw seeing. Ready made planks of
wood were rising up to the surface and joining together. They were all the same
width and length, I was astounded at what I saw.

I continued to look into the middle of the river, and then I saw nails coming
up from the sea floor. They positioned themselves onto the boat and held the
planks together, without them being banged. I stood in amazement and thought to
myself, ‘Oh Allah, how can this happen, planks of wood rising to the surface by
itself, and then nails positioning themselves onto the boat without being
banged?’ I could not undertsand what was happening before my eyes.’

The athiest meanwhile was listening with a smile on his face. Abu Hanifah
Rahimullah continued, ‘I was still standing on the river bank watching these
planks of wood join together with nails. I could see water seeping through the
gaps in the wood, and suddenly I saw a sealant appear from the river and it
began sealing the gaps without someone having poured it, again I thought, ‘Ya
Allah, how is this possible, how can sealant appear and seal the gaps without
someone having poured it, and nails appear without someone having banged them.’
I looked closer and I could see a boat forming before my eyes, I stood in
amazement and was filled with shock. All of a sudden a sail appeared and I
thought to myself, ‘How is this happening, a boat has appeared before my eyes by
itself, planks of wood, nails, sealant and now a sail, but how can I use this
boat in order to cross the river to the Royal Palaces?’ I stood staring in
wonderment and suddenly the boat began to move. It came towards me against the
current. It stood floating beside me while I was on the river bank, as if
telling me to embark onto it. I went on the boat and yet again it began to move.
There was no navigator or sailor on the boat, and the boat began to travel
towards the direction of the royal palaces, without anyone having programmed it
as to where to go. I could not understand what was happening, and how this boat
had formed and was taking me to my destination against the flow of water. The
boat eventually reached the other side of the River Tigris and I disembarked. I
turned around and the boat had disappeared, and that is why I am late.’

At this moment, the athiest brust out laughing and remarked, ‘Oh Abu Hanifah,
I heard that you were the best debator from amongst the Muslims, I heard that
you were the wisest, the most knowledgable from amongst your people. From seeing
you today, I can say that you show none of these qualities. You speak of a boat
appearing from nowhere, without someone having built it. Nails positioning
themselves without someone having banged them, sealant being poured without
someone having poured it, and the boat taking you to your destination without a
navigator against the tide, your taking childish, your talking rediculous, I
swear I do not belive a word of it!’

Abu Hanifah Rahimullah turned to the athiest and replied, ‘You don’t believe
a word of it? You dont believe that nails can appear by themselves? You dont
believe sealant can be poured by itself? You dont believe that a boat can move
without a navigator, hence you don’t believe that a boat can appear without a
boat maker?’

The athiest remarked defiantly, ‘Yes I dont believe a word of it!’

Abu Hanifah Rahimullah replied, ‘If you cannot believe that a boat came into
being without a boat maker, than this is only a boat, how can you believe that
the whole world, the universe, the stars, the oceans, and the planets came into
being without a creator?

The athiest astonished at his reply got up and fled.

[russell 13]

Hi Faati

 

Firstly I’ve never said there is no god, I don’t believe in any gods because there is no good evidence for them but I accept the possibility that someday someone may find such evidence and I’ll change my mind.  That’s the scientific approach in action and it is the only rational position that anyone can take on this question.  I see the chances of finding such a god as very very low but they are not zero.

 

You define god as the simple that can create complexity but god has been defined by those here as actively pushing around every single sub atomic particle for every moment of time.  I’m sorry but you’ll have to find evidence for something simple that can achieve that.  Without evidence you are just spreading hot air here.  Creating the universe with all of its complexity was a big enough task, a task requiring a complex entity to achieve if it was to be done to a plan or a simple system such as nature as exposed by science if no plan was involved but god is not nature from what you people have said to me.  We have never seen a simple entity which could create the sort of ordered complexity on purpose that we see in this universe but evidence will sway me if you can find any.

 

That lack of evidence is the critical point here.  No evidence = no belief for any truly rational person.

 

I’ve not read that Bacon quote before, interesting but wrong of course.  Recent research has shown the exact opposite, the more study, the more intelligence you put into science the greater your chances of becoming an atheist.  Of the National Academy of Sciences in the US, a peak Science body for the best of the best in science, the rates of atheism run at around 93%, higher for those fields which touch on these questions.  In many studies of intelligence vs. belief there is a clear inverse relationship, the higher your measured intelligence the lower your chance of being a believer.  Clearly Bacon was wrong but then he did live a long time ago so he didn’t have access to the best evidence that we have available today.

 

By the way I see no reason to believe there is a teapot orbiting Pluto for the same reason that I see no reason to accept that there is a god, there’s zero evidence for either though neither is absolutely impossible.

 

LOL yes I’ve heard that story before.  Do any of you really believe that any atheist would have a problem refuting such a debater?  Really?  With rubbish like that as their only argument.  That is amazing.

 

Ask your great debater what he knows of the cassimere effect, ask him what he knows of quantum tunneling events into desitter space.  We’ve modeled all these things with our mathematics and the seen all of these things happening in labs so we know they are real even if they make no sense in the everyday common sense way.  If he did not understand the basics of modern physics why should anyone think he understood the beginnings of the universe and therefor had anything worthwhile to say about it?

 

Russell