In the Gay to Straight? post, I made this reply:

Arguments against homosexuality which use comparisons are often shot down because the anti-homophobic viewpoint deems the comparison unequal. For example: homosexuality-murder (not hurting anyone), homosexuality-bestiality (not consensual, for starters), homosexuality-pedophilia (not consenting adults, power relation).

What about incest? As acceptance of homosexuality as natural increases, I always wonder, will the day come when people say "If I want to have sex with my sister, that's my personal choice. What I do in the bedroom is nobody's business."

So... gay people and non-gay people who feel offended by this comparison...

Is incest wrong?
Is it a personal choice?
Is it natural?

If yes (to all 3 questions), thank you for your time.
If no (to any)...

How is homosexuality different?
How is it different in a way that makes incest wrong/unnatural, but homosexuality OK?

i'd love to hear some responses to this.
________________________________________
-knead dough?? hit us up at-www.makindatbread.com
-representin the real since tuesday
-illified illustrated.word.fresh.

*get Lewis Taylor cd's here: http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000006TEI/o/qid=983465806/sr=8-2/026-0085729-5341211

much cheaper than the regular amazon (they charge $30 bucks) you'll pay 12pounds here which converts to less than $15 bucks.

>Is incest wrong?

depends...how close is the relationship, the age, etc. Most people are probably sickened by it...but that isn't the standard for right or wrong. Maybe we'll find something in your next questions...

>Is it a personal choice?

again, depends. Most incestual relationships involve such a large age difference that it would suffer the same "power issues" problem that your pedophilia example does (in fact, many incestual relationships border on pedophilia).

>Is it natural?

Well...what are you calling natural? At some point in your history, there HAD to be incestual relationships (that whole small population -> large population thing). Other members of the animal kingdom have incestual relationships.

Now to the important stuff:

>How is homosexuality different?
>How is it different in a
>way that makes incest wrong/unnatural,
>but homosexuality OK?

I think the largest issue is that homosexuality doesn't present the problem of genetically fucked up kids. That is good enough for me. If you want more, let me know.

>>Is it a personal choice?
>
>again, depends. Most incestual relationships
>involve such a large age
>difference that it would suffer
>the same "power issues" problem
>that your pedophilia example does
>(in fact, many incestual relationships
>border on pedophilia).

First, thanks 4 responding. I was truly surprised when no one made a peep on the Gay 2 Straight post after I wrote this (clarification on "If yes..." part, that applies for "personal choice?" and "natural?" only). Second, I feel like you're kinda running from the issue here... we're talking about incest in a situation where the family relation is all that's "wrong"... what most incest situations are like is of no consequence. Not to put you down, but this is the type of thing that made me think up the comparison - avoiding the issue, etc.

>>Is it natural?
>
>Well...what are you calling natural? At some point in your history, there HAD to be incestual relationships (that whole small population -> large population thing). Other members of the animal kingdom have incestual relationships.

I'm gonna take that as a yes... I think...

>Now to the important stuff:
>
>>How is homosexuality different?
>>How is it different in a
>>way that makes incest wrong/unnatural,
>>but homosexuality OK?
>
>I think the largest issue is
>that homosexuality doesn't present the
>problem of genetically fucked up
>kids. That is good
>enough for me. If
>you want more, let me
>know.

Interesting. I kind of expected this, it was destined to be raised... but I shall obviously not let the discussion end here. First, one word: contraception. Second, what brother-brother incest (cringe now, non-desensitized readers)? And sister-sister? No children could come out of these relationships... does nature really discourage incest more than it does homosexuality?

what about, I mean

as Nettrice said, you have to accept responsibility for your choices. Part of that responsibility is making sure you don't scar someone else's life with genetic defects. Contraception is fine...

If you are asking if there is an absolute reason for the taboo, then no...if done with proper respect and responsibility, there is nothing that differentiates the relationship from anything else.

Is there any other reason for the taboo? I think it developed out of what I was saying earlier: family relationships are different in a way that generally skews the workings of a "normal" relationship. Just because it CAN be done right does not mean that it IS or that it is not taboo. The reality of the situation is that most incestual relationships are not done right.

i just find it hard to believe that youre comparing incest with homosexuality.
Thats my only response.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
get ta yippidy & yappin about the mouf:
aol=VEmpressZion
yahoo=kisszion
_________________________________
*Open Your 3rd Eye*
http://www.geocities.com/kisszion/cleansing.html
________________________________________

http://members.blackplanet.com/ZionzFire

~~~SPITFIRE: 6/28/01~~~
carameldom@hotmail.com
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Bmore-Okayplayers

"The entire world is being driven insane by this single phrase: "My religion alone is true." ...Who can make a system from Divine Mystery? But if any sincere practitioner, within whatever culture or religion, prays and meditates with great devotion & committment to Truth alone, Your Grace will flood his mind and heart..." ~~Ramakrishna

"Ignorance: The Verbal Airborne Disease" (c) my friend Ty

~~~~
http://omidele.blogspot.com/
http://rahareiki.tumblr.com/
http://seatofbliss.blogspot.com/

I certainly do NOT want this to seem like or turn into some noble crusade against homosexuality, but the honest answer is that I, like many people, don't see homosexuality as something natural, i.e. something you're born with (PLEASE don't even come with that "why should you care" stuff; this is a message board and as long as things stay respectful, discussing opinions should not be discouraged). Therefore, my question comes from looking hypothetically at the practice in the context of other sexual deviations and wanting know if (and if so, why) this is incorrect. LexM, thank you for actually responding to my questions lower on the page.

Shit, I wish I understood your question better before I responded. Chances are I wouldn't have.

WHAT INDIVIDUAL you are attracted to is completely different than WHAT SEX you are attracted to. If you are attracted to your sister/brother, that is an issue of circumstances (there is no reason, much less evidence to believe any differently). If you are attracted to men/women, that is (at least, by many indications) an issue of your being.

>WHAT INDIVIDUAL you are attracted to
>is completely different than WHAT
>SEX you are attracted to.
> If you are attracted
>to your sister/brother, that is
>an issue of circumstances (there
>is no reason, much less
>evidence to believe any differently).
>If you are attracted to
>men/women, that is (at least,
>by many indications) an issue
>of your being.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "issue of circumstances" vs. "issue of your being".

No response because incest is a choice just like homosexuality and celibacy and abstinence. With every choice there are consequences and people must be willing to deal with the consequences, whatever they are.

Why can't people understand that each person is free to do whatever they do without judgement and why can't people be honest and real about the consequences of their choices?

I choose to be ___________ and that means I must deal with _______ and _______. I am wiiling to accept these things because I am a free person, a thinking person. If it's incest and they have children they may be putting them or their offspring at risk for genetic abnormalities. They will have to deal with a society that criticizes incest. But they love each other and they deal with it and accept the reality of it.

Is it natural? Sure it is. Is it wrong? Are you that judge that follows the standard that asserts some made up morality based on society or religion rather than look inward and judge the self?


"Know thyself"

"Let your conduct be without covetousness; be content with such things as you have. For He Himself has said, "I will never leave you or forsake you". So we may boldly say, "The Lord is my helper, I will not fear. What can man do to me?"
-- Hebrews 13:5,6

"There is a difference between knowing the path and walking the path"
--Morpheus in "The Matrix"

"It's our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities"- Dumbledore to Harry Potter "Chamber of Secrets"

<--- Blame this lady for Nutty.

>What about incest? As acceptance of
>homosexuality as natural increases, I
>always wonder, will the day
>come when people say "If
>I want to have sex
>with my sister, that's my
>personal choice. What I do
>in the bedroom is nobody's
>business."

I doubt it...There are certain societal mores that dictate the "proper" relationship between siblings, parents & children, etc. Apples and oranges. Two consenting adults who were strangers before developing a sexual relationship is completely different from a parent/child or two cousins or siblings crossing that line.


>Is incest wrong?

I hesitate to say it's "right" or "wrong", but w/out getting into all that, I'll say yes.


>Is it a personal choice?

what do you mean by "choice"? Yes, some people "choose" to do that, but when you KNOW a woman is your sister and you have a desire to sleep with her, that's indicative of some other, deeper problem.

>Is it natural?

"natural" is becoming a loaded word...but short answer, no


>How is homosexuality different?

As stated, two consenting, adults w/ no family ties.


>How is it different in a
>way that makes incest wrong/unnatural,
>but homosexuality OK?

There are no ties binding these two people outside their own relationship. They didn't grow up together, share parents or a family. They are acting on a mutual attraction at a point of sexual maturity. Most cases of incest are a child/adolescent being taken advantage of by an older, more experienced adult figure.

Just doesn't seem like a fair comparison to me.


~~~SPITFIRE: 6/28/01~~~
carameldom@hotmail.com
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Bmore-Okayplayers

"The entire world is being driven insane by this single phrase: "My religion alone is true." ...Who can make a system from Divine Mystery? But if any sincere practitioner, within whatever culture or religion, prays and meditates with great devotion & committment to Truth alone, Your Grace will flood his mind and heart..." ~~Ramakrishna

"Ignorance: The Verbal Airborne Disease" (c) my friend Ty

~~~~
http://omidele.blogspot.com/
http://rahareiki.tumblr.com/
http://seatofbliss.blogspot.com/

>There are no ties binding these
>two people outside their own
>relationship. They didn't grow up
>together, share parents or a
>family. They are acting on
>a mutual attraction at a
>point of sexual maturity. Most
>cases of incest are a
>child/adolescent being taken advantage of
>by an older, more experienced
>adult figure.
>
>Just doesn't seem like a fair
>comparison to me.

Refer yourself to my response to standard deviant - "They are acting on a mutual attraction..." applies to the type of situation I'm talking about; one w/o the complications of pedophilia and other acts that most gays do not condone. With that in mind, your objection boils down to the first 2 sentences of the quote above. So if they didn't grow up together, it would be OK? Of course, by "ties", you probably also mean genetic ones. Doesn't genetics also point to heterosexuality - no penis+vagina=no baby - ? Human relationships are not all about genetics, obviously, but should it or should it not have some bearing on who we choose to have a romantic relationship with?

(forgive me...it's early)

>Refer yourself to my response to
>standard deviant - "They are
>acting on a mutual attraction..."
>applies to the type of
>situation I'm talking about; one
>w/o the complications of pedophilia
>and other acts that most
>gays do not condone.

ok...


>With that in mind, your
>objection boils down to the
>first 2 sentences of the
>quote above. So if
>they didn't grow up together,
>it would be OK?

not necessarily. I mean, granted, you fall in love with who you fall in love with, but depending on the society you grew up in, if you happen to fall in love w/ your (first) cousin (unknowingly, let's say), generally when the information comes out, that attraction takes a backseat to the family ties and the relationship dissolves.

Still, in this country, when you hear of incest, it almost always occurs within the boundaries of pedophilic (sp?) behavior. That's the connotation I've come to draw from the word itself. Hell, American cousins have been kissing--so to speak--for generations, up until the last hundred years or so, in fact. But when I hear "incest," that implies "child molestation."


>Of course, by "ties", you
>probably also mean genetic ones.
> Doesn't genetics also point
>to heterosexuality - no penis+vagina=no
>baby - ?

BIOLOGY points to that, yes. But saying that homo or heterosexuality is genetic is something I don't really feel equipped to discuss. Do I think homosexuality (or any sexuality) is a choice? No. But that's my personal opinion. No, two gay men or women can't have children. But what's that have to do w/ their sexuality?


>Human
>relationships are not all about
>genetics, obviously, but should it
>or should it not have
>some bearing on who we
>choose to have a romantic
>relationship with?

Yes and no. If you have two people--unrelated or not--that have a high chance of having a child with some sort of genetic defect, you have to deal intelligently with that situation. Does that have anything to do with gay people? I can't see why it would. Again, I don't see the basis for comparison there.



~~~SPITFIRE: 6/28/01~~~
carameldom@hotmail.com
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Bmore-Okayplayers

"The entire world is being driven insane by this single phrase: "My religion alone is true." ...Who can make a system from Divine Mystery? But if any sincere practitioner, within whatever culture or religion, prays and meditates with great devotion & committment to Truth alone, Your Grace will flood his mind and heart..." ~~Ramakrishna

"Ignorance: The Verbal Airborne Disease" (c) my friend Ty

~~~~
http://omidele.blogspot.com/
http://rahareiki.tumblr.com/
http://seatofbliss.blogspot.com/

>Yes and no. If you have
>two people--unrelated or not--that have
>a high chance of having
>a child with some sort
>of genetic defect, you have
>to deal intelligently with that
>situation. Does that have anything
>to do with gay people?
>I can't see why it
>would. Again, I don't see
>the basis for comparison there.

Deal intelligently with the situation... somehow this makes me feel like the comparison makes sense... if what I say now doesn't change your basic objection, fine, you have responded intelligently to my questions and raised interesting points.

Two people "fall in love". Their biological status makes having a baby a questionable choice. They decide to prevent the possibility of pregnancy and/or adopt, but stay together because their love matters so much to them.

Two people "fall in love". Their biological status makes having a baby impossible. They decide to stay babyless or adopt, but stay together because their love matters so much to them.

Are these situations so different?

There is a polar difference. One is against nature.

"against nature"?

which situation?

why?


~~~SPITFIRE: 6/28/01~~~
carameldom@hotmail.com
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Bmore-Okayplayers

"The entire world is being driven insane by this single phrase: "My religion alone is true." ...Who can make a system from Divine Mystery? But if any sincere practitioner, within whatever culture or religion, prays and meditates with great devotion & committment to Truth alone, Your Grace will flood his mind and heart..." ~~Ramakrishna

"Ignorance: The Verbal Airborne Disease" (c) my friend Ty

~~~~
http://omidele.blogspot.com/
http://rahareiki.tumblr.com/
http://seatofbliss.blogspot.com/

Homosexuality is against nature. In other words, a penis was not meant to be stuck in an asshole. Is that graphic enough?

sheesh....





~~~SPITFIRE: 6/28/01~~~
carameldom@hotmail.com
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Bmore-Okayplayers

"The entire world is being driven insane by this single phrase: "My religion alone is true." ...Who can make a system from Divine Mystery? But if any sincere practitioner, within whatever culture or religion, prays and meditates with great devotion & committment to Truth alone, Your Grace will flood his mind and heart..." ~~Ramakrishna

"Ignorance: The Verbal Airborne Disease" (c) my friend Ty

"cats pop champagne/over misery and pain/like slaves on the ship/talkin 'bout/who got the flyest chains" ~~Talib Kweli

~~~~
http://omidele.blogspot.com/
http://rahareiki.tumblr.com/
http://seatofbliss.blogspot.com/

>Deal intelligently with the situation... somehow
>this makes me feel like
>the comparison makes sense...

when I say "deal intelligently" I only mean understand the risks involved, weigh pros and cons, and then decide whether or not to have the child. I'm definitely not suggesting whether they "should" or "shouldn't," just that they fully comprehend their situation, whatever that may be.

>if
>what I say now doesn't
>change your basic objection, fine,
>you have responded intelligently to
>my questions and raised interesting
>points.

thanks


>Two people "fall in love".
>Their biological status makes having
>a baby a questionable choice.
> They decide to prevent
>the possibility of pregnancy and/or
>adopt, but stay together because
>their love matters so much
>to them.

okay...

>
>Two people "fall in love".
>Their biological status makes having
>a baby impossible. They
>decide to stay babyless or
>adopt, but stay together because
>their love matters so much
>to them.

okay...


>Are these situations so different?

Different from what? From each other? No, not really. Just a matter of choosing NOT to have a child vs. accepting the fact that they CANNOT have a child.

Are those situations different from a gay couple adopting a child? Yes. There's no guarantee that a straight, "conventional" couple will raise a sane, well adjusted child. Conversely, there's no guarantee that a child raised by a same sex couple will grow up to be morally deficient or psychologically scarred.



~~~SPITFIRE: 6/28/01~~~
carameldom@hotmail.com
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Bmore-Okayplayers

"The entire world is being driven insane by this single phrase: "My religion alone is true." ...Who can make a system from Divine Mystery? But if any sincere practitioner, within whatever culture or religion, prays and meditates with great devotion & committment to Truth alone, Your Grace will flood his mind and heart..." ~~Ramakrishna

"Ignorance: The Verbal Airborne Disease" (c) my friend Ty

~~~~
http://omidele.blogspot.com/
http://rahareiki.tumblr.com/
http://seatofbliss.blogspot.com/

>Are those situations different from a
>gay couple adopting a child?

I realize now I was being a little unclear. The "Two people..." thing was a comparison of an incestuous couple and a gay couple with respect to having children.

I see your point.

If we are going to throw away moral standards then don't half step doing it. It doesn't make sense to condone homosexuality but then spit on incest, beastiality, polygamy, etc. Sooner or later they are going to make themselves known, and just like all the other moral barriers that have been broken these will as well. I'm not saying whether any of them are right or wrong, I'm simply saying it's a double standard.

_________________________
http://expertise.blogdrive.com
http://twitter.com/KMBReferee
http://www.ask.fm/KMBReferee

What is "natural"? What is natural to you is not natural to someone else and vice/verse.

ThereinLIES the conflict in ur inquiry.

~Peace~


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
get ta yippidy & yappin about the mouf:
aim=VEmpressZion
yahoo=kisszion
_________________________________
*Open Your 3rd Eye*
http://www.geocities.com/kisszion/cleansing.html
________________________________________

http://members.blackplanet.com/ZionzFire

Let the world engage in what homosexuals debate as "natural" and there would be NO MORE WORLD.
Man and womb-man fit like puzzle pieces.
Man and man do NOT.
Woman and woman do NOT.

When homosexuals use things(real and fake) that are naturally attributed to the opposite sex, it makes you wonder WHAT exactly is the attraction to the SAME sex?

That is confusion.

>Let the world engage in what
>homosexuals debate as "natural" and
>there would be NO MORE
>WORLD.
>Man and womb-man fit like puzzle
>pieces.
>Man and man do NOT.
>Woman and woman do NOT.

And what do you call other instances of homosexuality in other animals? Is that "unnatural" as well? Is nature defined by the direct propogation of a species? What about hermaphrodites?

>When homosexuals use things(real and fake)
>that are naturally attributed to
>the opposite sex, it makes
>you wonder WHAT exactly is
>the attraction to the SAME
>sex?

So I suppose if you drink something that isn't pure water when you are thirsty, I should ask you WHAT exactly is your attraction to that other liquid? Are homosexuals attracted only to the sex? Are you with your mate (if you have one) strictly because he/she is a penis/vagina?

>
>That is confusion.

That is a poorly reasoned arguement

>>Let the world engage in what
>>homosexuals debate as "natural" and
>>there would be NO MORE
>>WORLD.
>>Man and womb-man fit like puzzle
>>pieces.
>>Man and man do NOT.
>>Woman and woman do NOT.
>
>And what do you call other
>instances of homosexuality in other
>animals? Is that "unnatural"
>as well? Is nature
>defined by the direct propogation
>of a species? What
>about hermaphrodites?

come on standard. the comparison of what is "natural' for animals and humans is not a good one.
doesnt the female black widow kill her male partner?
not natural to us to do that, especially after mating! that would be considered SICK to humans.

dont snakes swallow their food whole w/o chewing?
not natural for us to do that. and for those that half chew their food, believe they have health problems that stem from it.

do humans have mating calls, sniff the air to locate a mate, or fight each other to have the honorable privilege of mating w/ the only female around?!?
if the answer is yes (enter comedians here), then that should show us jus how animalistic humans are getting, and thats why there are so many problems w/ them. they dont wanna live as humans!

and about hermaphrodites.......
i was just reading about this and how this situation fits in islam.
islam looks to the character of the person and the physical features. when he or she reaches puberty, it becomes known to the individual which way they are inclined to go, but they are not to go both ways simply b/c they have the MEANS TO. the OVERALL inclination of the person determines their status in society.

brief story:
there was a hermaphrodite who used to be w/ the women in the time of the prophet muhammad. he was allowed to come and go amongst the women b/c everyone thought he had no inclination towards women. one day, muhammad overheard hm describing the shape of a woman, and from that day on, he was not allowed in the precincts of the women.

one more:
there was another man in the same time, that used to dye his hands and feet w/henna (this is something that only the women do). so he was brought to muhammad and he sent him to another town.


Allah says in the 2nd surah, Al-Baqarah(The Cow) 2.25: But give glad tidings to those who believe and work righteousness, that their portion is Gardens, beneath which rivers flow. Every time they are fed with fruits therefrom, they say: "Why, this is what we were fed with before," for they are given things in similitude; and they have therein companions pure (and holy); and they abide therein (for ever).

subhaanakallahumma wabihamdika ashhadu anla ilaha illa anta astaghfiruka wa attuubu ilaika

>come on standard. the comparison of
>what is "natural' for animals
>and humans is not a
>good one.
>doesnt the female black widow kill
>her male partner?
>not natural to us to do
>that, especially after mating! that
>would be considered SICK to
>humans.

This is the related to the point I was trying to make. I was trying to ask by what standard do you judge "natural". We (most of us, anyway) accept that murder is not natural, as it ends the life of another person. No arguement here.

>dont snakes swallow their food whole
>w/o chewing?
>not natural for us to do
>that. and for those that
>half chew their food, believe
>they have health problems that
>stem from it.

We accept that swallowing food whole (for us) is unnatural...it has unhealthy side effects that we would mostly like to avoid.

>and about hermaphrodites.......
>i was just reading about this
>and how this situation fits
>in islam.
>islam looks to the character of
>the person and the physical
>features. when he or she
>reaches puberty, it becomes known
>to the individual which way
>they are inclined to go,
>but they are not to
>go both ways simply b/c
>they have the MEANS TO.
>the OVERALL inclination of the
>person determines their status in
>society.

Right...which is my point. The hermaphrodite is allowed to follow their NATURAL inclinations. So why is the homosexual forbidden to do the same? If the arguement is that it is UNnatural, by what standard is "natural" being judged?



"I've been very lonely in my isolated tower of indecipherable speech"--Being John Malchovich

bismillah

>>come on standard. the comparison of
>>what is "natural' for animals
>>and humans is not a
>>good one.
>>doesnt the female black widow kill
>>her male partner?
>>not natural to us to do
>>that, especially after mating! that
>>would be considered SICK to
>>humans.
>
>This is the related to the
>point I was trying to
>make. I was trying
>to ask by what standard
>do you judge "natural".

the same standard that you used to say the next statement:
>We (most of us, anyway)
>accept that murder is not
>natural, as it ends the
>life of another person.
>No arguement here.
>
>>dont snakes swallow their food whole
>>w/o chewing?
>>not natural for us to do
>>that. and for those that
>>half chew their food, believe
>>they have health problems that
>>stem from it.
>
>We accept that swallowing food whole
>(for us) is unnatural...it has
>unhealthy side effects that we
>would mostly like to avoid.
>
>
>>and about hermaphrodites.......
>>i was just reading about this
>>and how this situation fits
>>in islam.
>>islam looks to the character of
>>the person and the physical
>>features. when he or she
>>reaches puberty, it becomes known
>>to the individual which way
>>they are inclined to go,
>>but they are not to
>>go both ways simply b/c
>>they have the MEANS TO.
>>the OVERALL inclination of the
>>person determines their status in
>>society.
>
>Right...which is my point. The
>hermaphrodite is allowed to follow
>their NATURAL inclinations. So
>why is the homosexual forbidden
>to do the same?
>If the arguement is that
>it is UNnatural, by what
>standard is "natural" being judged?

the key words are: follow their NATURAL inclinations.
not FOLLOW their desires.

and once again, its the same standard used by you above.
you deduced by a set of standards you ALREADY have that NOTHING can come out of MURDERING and SWALLOWING W/O CHEWING, EXCEPT HARM.

and that is the SAME standard that is INSIDE ALL OF US.
some just fight that standard, and proceed to do what ever theY want to do.

hence you have: rape, murder, incest, drunkeness, liars, politicians, highness, bigotry, fornication, adultery, homosexuality, etc......

is anybody born w/ any of these qualities?

Allah says in the 2nd surah, Al-Baqarah(The Cow) 2.25: But give glad tidings to those who believe and work righteousness, that their portion is Gardens, beneath which rivers flow. Every time they are fed with fruits therefrom, they say: "Why, this is what we were fed with before," for they are given things in similitude; and they have therein companions pure (and holy); and they abide therein (for ever).

subhaanakallahumma wabihamdika ashhadu anla ilaha illa anta astaghfiruka wa attuubu ilaika

Before I go on, let me say I appreciate your posts...and I was intrigued by how hermaphrodites fit into islam. Thanks.

Is what is natural to you or your people natural to me and mine? I'm sure you can hear the chants of UNIVERSALIZING coming . Who does homosexuality harm? Is it bad for someone's health? Does it lead to death?

>the key words are: follow their
>NATURAL inclinations.
>not FOLLOW their desires.

Do you and yours draw that line, or do they? What is the difference between a natural inclination and a desire?

>hence you have: rape, murder, incest,
>drunkeness, liars, politicians, highness, bigotry,
>fornication, adultery, homosexuality, etc......
>
>is anybody born w/ any of
>these qualities?

I can't speak for anyone but myself...but I'd say I have most of those "qualities"...whether they manifest themselves or not. I personally CHOOSE not to rape, murder, be drunken, lie, get high, be a bigot, fornicate, or be an adulterer. I DON'T CHOOSE to be heterosexual...that is part of my being.

Since the prior group IS something I CHOOSE to do, does that make it unnatural by the previous definition? (that question is to everyone)

"I've been very lonely in my isolated tower of indecipherable speech"--Being John Malchovich

Before I go on, let me
>say I appreciate your posts...and
>I was intrigued by how
>hermaphrodites fit into islam.
>Thanks.

youre welcome or as we say up in da mosque: 'afwaan

>Is what is natural to you
>or your people natural to
>me and mine?

bismillah

yes, if you mean it on a inherent humanistic level.
no, if you mean it on a "thinking" level.

>I'm
>sure you can hear the
>chants of UNIVERSALIZING coming .
> Who does homosexuality harm?

society.
how?
it detracts from society by not being able to create society. and to break it down even more, it most certainly isnt "natural" to get semen implanted for the purpose of creating society. so you are back to square 1. no society=no one to be hetro/homo

> Is it bad for
>someone's health?

yes.
how?
diseases and possibly physical problems from things being placed in places that were not meant to have things placed in them.

>Does it
>lead to death?

possibly.
how?
that disease that the cure have not been found yet that are life-threatening.

>>the key words are: follow their
>>NATURAL inclinations.
>>not FOLLOW their desires.
>
>Do you and yours draw that
>line, or do they?

the line was drawn from day1conception.
but individuals have the tendency of adding/subtracting to that line.


>What is the difference between
>a natural inclination and a
>desire?

food-natural inclination
shrimp-desire
this is the best one. for real, how many times have we thought to ourself "man, im hungry than a muuug" (bamma talk, that is) "gee, i sure am hungry" (carlton banks style), and immedaitely after you realize this reality: "what am i going to eat".

intercourse-natural inclination (after puberty, for all comedians)
oral sex-desire

learning-natural inclination
degree in psychology-desire

speaking-natural inclination
subject-desire

to be a person-natural inclination
to be what-desire

note: some desires go hand and hand w/ natural inclination, and some oppose them totally.

>>hence you have: rape, murder, incest,
>>drunkeness, liars, politicians, highness, bigotry,
>>fornication, adultery, homosexuality, etc......
>>
>>is anybody born w/ any of
>>these qualities?
>
>I can't speak for anyone but
>myself...but I'd say I have
>most of those "qualities"...whether they
>manifest themselves or not.

but were you born w/ them?
ex: lies-no child tells a lie until necessary to keep from gettin that ass-woopin, which usually still comes because they dont lie to well. we get better at lying when we get older, why is that? hmm...

>I personally CHOOSE not to
>rape, murder, be drunken, lie,
>get high, be a bigot,
>fornicate, or be an adulterer.
> I DON'T CHOOSE to
>be heterosexual...that is part of
>my being.
>
>Since the prior group IS something
>I CHOOSE to do, does
>that make it unnatural by
>the previous definition? (that question
>is to everyone)

by definition, since you choose NOT TO DO THEM, it is unnatural.

ok, i think i got it:
hunger.
the natural thing to do is to stiffle it.
the unnatural thing is to let it subsist.
how you stiffle it is natural (provided you are a normal person who knows what to do when food is put into your mouth).
what you stiffle it w/ is a choice.

did i get it this time

Allah says in the 2nd surah, Al-Baqarah(The Cow) 2.25: But give glad tidings to those who believe and work righteousness, that their portion is Gardens, beneath which rivers flow. Every time they are fed with fruits therefrom, they say: "Why, this is what we were fed with before," for they are given things in similitude; and they have therein companions pure (and holy); and they abide therein (for ever).

subhaanakallahumma wabihamdika ashhadu anla ilaha illa anta astaghfiruka wa attuubu ilaika

>What is "natural"? What is natural
>to you is not natural
>to someone else and vice/verse.
>
>
>ThereinLIES the conflict in ur inquiry.

I disagree. My inquiry searches for the opinions of people like you. YOU tell me what you feel is natural and whether both gayness and incest fit it. By replying with the above quote, you're simply missing the point.

This is a very interesting post! I usually don't respond, I usually just look at the different view points from everyone. Here, however, people are using the argument of 'If you feel inside that its right do it' qutie a lot. Now, i'm not saying that soley using conscience as a guide for ones morality is wrong, it is a big part of how we conduct ourselves. What I feel is that the conscience is there to at most discover the truth, not invent it! Just because something can be done doesn't mean it should be! even if one feels to do it!

>I disagree. My inquiry searches
>for the opinions of people
>like you. YOU tell
>me what you feel is
>natural and whether both gayness
>and incest fit it.
>By replying with the above
>quote, you're simply missing the
>point.

The fact that youre evn comparig incest and homosexualty boggles me ..as i said before. How you can put the 2 in the same boat is scary. So, this may be why you believ that I am missing the point.

People like me?
WHat exactly is the description of "people like me" (I would like to hear this one).

Also, because i make the point of telling you in fact that what you will find natural will not be what others find natural does not make me an participant in incest or homosexuality.

Everyone is not like you or I or the next person.
Remember that we were burned and lynched because we werent looked at as natural beings?



>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
get ta yippidy & yappin about the mouf:
aim=VEmpressZion
yahoo=kisszion
_________________________________
*Open Your 3rd Eye*
http://www.geocities.com/kisszion/cleansing.html
________________________________________

http://members.blackplanet.com/ZionzFire

If you want answers then you probably should be willin to give answers also.


Peace.



>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
get ta yippidy & yappin about the mouf:
aim=VEmpressZion
yahoo=kisszion
_________________________________
*Open Your 3rd Eye*
http://www.geocities.com/kisszion/cleansing.html
________________________________________

http://members.blackplanet.com/ZionzFire

People like you = anyone who reads this post.
Also, if you'll look amongst my replies, I do not always refrain from sharing some of my opinions. Still, I think there is value in a post made to provoke discussion and in hearing what other people say so you can consider it beside your opinions.

Why can't people understand that each person is free to do whatever they do without judgement and why can't people be honest and real about the consequences of their choices?

Is it natural? Sure it is. Is it wrong? Are you that judge that follows the standard that asserts some made up morality based on society or religion rather than look inward and judge the self?

Some people love to judge others but refuse to turn that critical eye inward. Some people hide behind the standard morality rather than realize that it's up to God to pass judgement.



"Know thyself"

"Let your conduct be without covetousness; be content with such things as you have. For He Himself has said, "I will never leave you or forsake you". So we may boldly say, "The Lord is my helper, I will not fear. What can man do to me?"
-- Hebrews 13:5,6

"There is a difference between knowing the path and walking the path"
--Morpheus in "The Matrix"

"It's our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities"- Dumbledore to Harry Potter "Chamber of Secrets"

<--- Blame this lady for Nutty.

>Some
>people hide behind the standard
>morality rather than realize that
>it's up to God to
>pass judgement.

but to be fair, we have to recognize that alot of PPL "judge" w/ God's judgement.
if God says "such-n-such", then i say "such-n-such" exactly as he said it, i didnt really pass "judgement", i just reiterated it. God passed it. and we read it.

do we feel the same about the court system?


Allah says in the 2nd surah, Al-Baqarah(The Cow) 2.25: But give glad tidings to those who believe and work righteousness, that their portion is Gardens, beneath which rivers flow. Every time they are fed with fruits therefrom, they say: "Why, this is what we were fed with before," for they are given things in similitude; and they have therein companions pure (and holy); and they abide therein (for ever).

subhaanakallahumma wabihamdika ashhadu anla ilaha illa anta astaghfiruka wa attuubu ilaika

As-Salaam-Alaikum.

You are nailing this argument. Good job. Just had to tell you that. May Allah forever bless you to teach the truth.

Speaking of which, you never got back w/ me regarding Islam. I look forward to it.

okayplayer coolv.

wa alaikum salaam.

hit my inbox again. where you been at?
you in atl, right? im in columbus.

king kut-you know you wanna slice......
you went back then.

Allah says in the 2nd surah, Al-Baqarah(The Cow) 2.25: But give glad tidings to those who believe and work righteousness, that their portion is Gardens, beneath which rivers flow. Every time they are fed with fruits therefrom, they say: "Why, this is what we were fed with before," for they are given things in similitude; and they have therein companions pure (and holy); and they abide therein (for ever).

subhaanakallahumma wabihamdika ashhadu anla ilaha illa anta astaghfiruka wa attuubu ilaika

People are conditioned by the society they live in. They are domesticated and can't judge with God's judgement. God is the one and only judge.

>if God says "such-n-such", then i
>say "such-n-such" exactly as he
>said it, i didnt really
>pass "judgement", i just reiterated
>it. God passed it. and
>we read it.

You read it but where did it come from? Did it come from God directly or through inspiration? How do you know? You can have faith that what you are reading and studying is God's word but the only way human beings can receive the word is through inspiration. Human beings are influenced by the society they live in and Divine inspiration is part of our existence but to judge this behavior or belief is more righteous than the next is to have tunnel vision. Humans are limited in their scope of right and wrong and only God is all-seeing.

The same people who judge homosexuals are in league with people who judge me because I am a woman or because my skin is brown. These people are all part of the same "family" or group. They are not righteous.


"Know thyself"

"Let your conduct be without covetousness; be content with such things as you have. For He Himself has said, "I will never leave you or forsake you". So we may boldly say, "The Lord is my helper, I will not fear. What can man do to me?"
-- Hebrews 13:5,6

"There is a difference between knowing the path and walking the path"
--Morpheus in "The Matrix"

"It's our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities"- Dumbledore to Harry Potter "Chamber of Secrets"

<--- Blame this lady for Nutty.

>The same people who judge homosexuals
>are in league with people
>who judge me because I
>am a woman or because
>my skin is brown.
>These people are all part
>of the same "family" or
>group. They are not
>righteous.

Is it really that simple? What if people judged you because you were sexually promiscuous? You might feel they were nosy or hypocritical, but would you compare it with racism or sexism? I guess this whole discussion comes down to whether or not homosexuality is an intricate part of who you are as a human being - i.e., are you born with it?

Controversial question.

Did you ever notice that the other things homophobia is compared with tend to be undisputedly based on something you're born with? As in, apartheid didn't punish those who CHOSE to be black.

Just some food for thought... (not tryin to hate)

>>The same people who judge homosexuals
>>are in league with people
>>who judge me because I
>>am a woman or because
>>my skin is brown.
>>These people are all part
>>of the same "family" or
>>group. They are not
>>righteous.

Here I am being judgemental. I have to check myself, too.

>Is it really that simple?
>What if people judged you
>because you were sexually promiscuous?
> You might feel they
>were nosy or hypocritical, but
>would you compare it with
>racism or sexism? I
>guess this whole discussion comes
>down to whether or not
>homosexuality is an intricate part
>of who you are as
>a human being - i.e.,
>are you born with it?

People judge me all the time, make assumptions and misunderstand what I am on this planet to do. People judge my color, my youthful looks-vs-my experience, my appearance, etc. My sexual preference is very personal, so I am usually not judged but misjudged. When I was born, I didn't have the predisposition to homosexuality but I don't feel the need to assert my personal views on people who are homosexual. Sexuality is indeed an intricate part of being a human being, so whether or not one chooses to have sex with someone of the same gender is part of the Path, part of the contract each person has with the Universe.

>Did you ever notice that the
>other things homophobia is compared
>with tend to be undisputedly
>based on something you're born
>with? As in, apartheid
>didn't punish those who CHOSE
>to be black.

Yes, I noticed and I acknowledge a person's sexuality as part of his/her Divine agreement. Every choice has a consequence but perhaps one's sexuality goes beyond choice. Who am I to judge?


"Know thyself"

"Let your conduct be without covetousness; be content with such things as you have. For He Himself has said, "I will never leave you or forsake you". So we may boldly say, "The Lord is my helper, I will not fear. What can man do to me?"
-- Hebrews 13:5,6

"There is a difference between knowing the path and walking the path"
--Morpheus in "The Matrix"

"It's our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities"- Dumbledore to Harry Potter "Chamber of Secrets"

<--- Blame this lady for Nutty.

>Did you ever notice that the
>other things homophobia is compared
>with tend to be undisputedly
>based on something you're born
>with? As in, apartheid
>didn't punish those who CHOSE
>to be black.

How do you know people don't CHOOSE to be black?
Because it is something genetic.
Why are you convinced homosexuality is different? (before we get into the specifics of blackness, imagine any trait, dominant or recessive or traits that skip generations, whatever you like...someone who didn't KNOW the genetics of it might have a tendency to say there is NO order to it, or may even ascribe it to choice. And of course, there my be some mixture...where it wasn't before, cancer is now understood to be genetic, but is also environmentally controlled. The point is that there isn't a good reason to believe there is a simple answer to it...and if there is no simple answer, there is no simple judgement without concideration)

If you ask someone when they chose to be heterosexual/homosexual, they will look at you with the same gaze as if you ask them when they chose to be <insert trait>

In fact, lets consider left-handedness. At one time, this was a frightening disorder that crippled many American children...parents and teachers tried to beat this abberation out of their kids. Oooops! (now, do you want to catch yourself saying the same thing if/when you find out the same thing applies to homosexuality?)



"I've been very lonely in my isolated tower of indecipherable speech"--Being John Malchovich

>How do you know people don't
>CHOOSE to be black?
>Because it is something genetic.
>Why are you convinced homosexuality is
>different?

My statement was made to draw attention to the lack of dispute about race, gender, etc. compared with homosexuality. Am I convinced homosexuality is not different? Well... for the moment, yes. I'm trying to keep an open mind; the idea for this post comes out of trying to understand what exactly homosexuality is.

>(before we get
>into the specifics of blackness,
>imagine any trait, dominant or
>recessive or traits that skip
>generations, whatever you like...someone who
>didn't KNOW the genetics of
>it might have a tendency
>to say there is NO
>order to it, or may
>even ascribe it to choice.

I'm sorry, I really have a hard time imagining that any large number of people in history have assumed skin colour and other genetic traits to be a choice. Think about when people used to kill "freak" children (those with physical or mental handicaps); they usually blamed it on the devil, not the child's free will.

>In fact, lets consider left-handedness.
>At one time, this was
>a frightening disorder that crippled
>many American children...parents and teachers
>tried to beat this abberation
>out of their kids.
>Oooops! (now, do you want
>to catch yourself saying the
>same thing if/when you find
>out the same thing applies
>to homosexuality?)

Again: weren't the beatings to stop the child from following their natural inclinations (which were thought to be wrong)? Or did parents feel that kids just wanted to spite them?


> And of course, there
>my be some mixture...where it
>wasn't before, cancer is now
>understood to be genetic, but
>is also environmentally controlled.
>The point is that there
>isn't a good reason to
>believe there is a simple
>answer to it...and if there
>is no simple answer, there
>is no simple judgement without
>concideration)
>If you ask someone when they chose to be heterosexual/homosexual, they will look at you with the same gaze as if you ask them when they chose to be <insert trait>
>

I once heard some suggest that finding a gene which causes homosexuality would not make it right because there are biological explanations of tendencies towards depression and other mental problems which can be dealt with or fought through treatment. I WRITE THIS TO FIND OUT PEOPLE'S REACTION - not because this is my personal belief. I think it is something to consider...

I like when people can argue intellectually and logically. Chike raised an important point about where we draw the line...all the counter-arguments were equally good.
To each his own. I once read a post that maybe being gay is a disease since afterall we are prepared to treat alot of "disorders" as diseases. i'm not sure what to think about that but at least it's a line of thought worth pursing. if you're gay it may be hard to do that cause the issue is too close to home.
i don't really have much to contribute but I just wanted to say that they are alot of intelligent people in this post.
What people do is their own business, I have a right to be disgusted by it(hence I can't watch Oz) but i know i don't have the right to actively persecute them.
there is only one judge....well actually there's also "the law". and "the law" in united states does not make it illegal. in some other countries it actually is illegal.
SIGNATURE STARTS YONDER
**************************
NE LOVE/ LOVE
(THE HICE IS URS)
**************************
The emoticon as 'O' symbol is a registered trademark of dafriquan.
No biting without written permission.
*************************

RIP JDILLA
THE ILLEST THAT EVER DID IT

That's interesting...if homosexuality were a disease, being homosexual would be comparable to being born without the tools to reproduce. I tend to think its learned behavoir, but I'm not sure if its been shown either way; it could be a combination of the two. Personally, I see no difference in homosexuality or consensual insect. As people begin to become less concerned about what religious doctrine says and more about what they think, things like this will become more common.

it would make this discussion interesting...maybe we'd arguing whether to allow gay people to keep having gay sex or prevent them from having sex and giving them forced treatment.
gayness might be genetic. but then aren't some diseases heridtary anyway?
i'm just reaching here...but the thing is even we did find the "gay" gene and a way to "treat" it, i don't think the gay community would take kindly to the issue. Finding out that your lifestyle is a disease could be quite a shocking revelation.
Just for clarification if I recall correctly, the argument for "gayness" as a disease goes something like this:

"Chemical imbalances in the brain can cause a man to compulsively wash his hands 40 times a day or to become schitzophrenic. In either case, a mixture of psychology and medicine are used to treat it or at least curb its worse mainfestations. What if being gay could be similarly treated?"

These are not the exact words but I thought about this and I have no way of strongly refuting the logic. At fist I thought this argument implies that maybe we can arbitrarily throw the disease label at a lot of things. and then I thought if something was perfectly normal(a good majority of the population)
then it would not have to be treated in the first place.
My second argument was that homosexuality could not be a disease because diseases usually have an underlying health consequence or effect on the body. But homosexuality is harmless, right?
Possibly...but one could argue (like chillin above) that the consequence of homosexuality is the inability to reproduce naturally. Reproduction is part of the human life cycle.

Besides the obvious, "But that's just ridiculous", is there a clear cut way to refute this logic or should we at least entertain the possibility?


SIGNATURE STARTS YONDER
"Put his ass in a 8' by 10' windowless room with Suge and ShYne"-sundasill on what he would do to puff daddy for musical rehab.
**************************
NE LOVE/ LOVE
(THE HICE IS URS)
**************************
The emoticon as 'O' symbol is a registered trademark of dafriquan.
No biting without written permission.
*************************

RIP JDILLA
THE ILLEST THAT EVER DID IT

>it would make this discussion interesting...maybe
>we'd arguing whether to allow
>gay people to keep having
>gay sex or prevent them
>from having sex and giving
>them forced treatment.
>gayness might be genetic. but then
>aren't some diseases heridtary anyway?



are we considering it to be a mental or physical illness? that answer allows the question to be probed more. as a mental illness it could be argued that it shouldn't be treated in regards to how we currently medically define most mental illnesses anyway. the accessment seems to be pretty broad. some things that we considered illnesses in some circles are not considered that by everyone else. also our defintions change over a time. ex: hyper children used to be considered mentally ill.

as a physical illness i don't personally know that the inability to reproduce should constitute an illness as it applies to the human race. ex: worker bees don't reproduce. they serve a particular purpose in the hive. they don't have an "illness". it may be stetching, but my point is to say that not being able to reproduce should not count as an illness.

I guess it would have to be a mental disease. I kinda see your point about not being able to reproduce not necessarily being an illness. Taking that into consideration, the second argument I made(about health consequence) is not as strong anymore.
I didn't no hyper active kids were no longer considered an illness. So how is it classified now? I knew a kid who had to take pills for that shit when I was growing up.
SIGNATURE STARTS YONDER
"Put his ass in a 8' by 10' windowless room with Suge and ShYne"-sundasill on what he would do to puff daddy for musical rehab.
**************************
NE LOVE/ LOVE
(THE HICE IS URS)
**************************
The emoticon as 'O' symbol is a registered trademark of dafriquan.
No biting without written permission.
*************************

RIP JDILLA
THE ILLEST THAT EVER DID IT

i know now that there is MAJOR medical debate about giving those kids that ridlin (SP?). they are seriously considering the possibility that they may not be deficient. i know in school that some of the kids that had ADS were found to be "gifted". it just became a question of a way to bring out characteristics or functions of their inability to operate in a "normal" classroom situation.

it goes on. in some circles a lot of the mental health thinking is being re-examined. (whole new topic).

talk to you later.

>I guess it would have to
>be a mental disease. I
>kinda see your point about
>not being able to reproduce
>not necessarily being an illness.
>Taking that into consideration, the
>second argument I made(about health
>consequence) is not as strong
>anymore.
>I didn't no hyper active kids
>were no longer considered an
>illness. So how is it
>classified now? I knew a
>kid who had to take
>pills for that shit when
>I was growing up.
>SIGNATURE STARTS YONDER
>"Put his ass in a 8'
>by 10' windowless room with
>Suge and ShYne"-sundasill on what
>he would do to puff
>daddy for musical rehab.
>**************************
> NE LOVE/ LOVE
>
> (THE HICE IS URS)
>
>**************************
>The emoticon as 'O' symbol is
>a registered trademark of dafriquan.
>
>No biting without written permission.
>*************************


"Shit, them niggas is bad as hell and ain't nothing you can do about that but to accept it and go buy a postcard." - Anonymous

http://www.thesquareegg.com

http://www.mp3.com/thesquareegg

>Is incest wrong?
If you believe in Adam and Eve then I guess it's not. I'm not one to judge right or wrong because really, who knows? Personally, it's not something that I would do. I don't see the resoning behind it.

>Is it a personal choice?
Yes, people do what they want to do.

>Is it natural?
If I knew your definition of natural, I could answer that. It has been proven that children born of incest have an increased number of birth defects. Basically, that's stagnation of the gene pool. The closer you are genetically, the more likely you are to pass on defects. Natral...unnatural?..I don't know.

>If yes (to all 3 questions),
>thank you for your time.
>
>If no (to any)...
>
>How is homosexuality different?
A homosexual relationship between family members is incest. However, a homosexual relationship between two unrelated people doesn't have anything to do with incest. It's not even comparable.

>How is it different in a
>way that makes incest wrong/unnatural,
>but homosexuality OK?
Homosexuality doesn't cause birth defects...it doesn't produce children at all. Like I said before, I can't define right or wrong/natural or unnatural. It just seems that incest has more cons than pros.


The events of Friday night 4/20/01:

Drunk guy trying to get my number: "So what, you too good to let a nigga holla? I see how it is, you think you gangsta?!

Me: What?! Fuck gangsta, I'm from the damn suburbs...I keep shit suburban.

Friends in my car: Bwhahahahaha!!! What the hell?!?!! Your ass is crazy!

homosexuality is not chosen
this story about my friends brother
he was suicidal for years because he could not
understand why he wasn't attracted to females

insest on the other hand
creates problems in heredity
I think thats the #1 reason that is is wrong
any feedback?
diverseprod@yahoo.com
peace playa

>homosexuality is not chosen
>this story about my friends brother

We make choices everyday. Most of the time we are unaware that we are making them.

>
>he was suicidal for years because
>he could not
>understand why he wasn't attracted to
>females

He should have been asking himself why was he attracted to males.

>
>insest on the other hand
>creates problems in heredity
>I think thats the #1 reason
>that is is wrong
>any feedback?
>diverseprod@yahoo.com
>peace playa

There is a heredity problem with homosexuality as well. There is no procreation. Even if you don't believe in God nature shows us that homosexuality is wrong.

Chike the issue is you reguard homosexuality as a sexual deviation...and because of that you lump it with the rest of the classic deviations, incest, pedophila..etc...you see homosexuality as inherently unnatural because that union cannot produce offspring...i could be wrong if so please correct...

For those that say it is "wrong" or (Chike) deviant, I have to ask, HOW THE HELL CAN WE TELL GROWN MEN AND WOMEN WHAT THEY FEEL AND WHAT TO DO WITH THEIR (STRESS THEIR) BODIES?

If your answer is
or Allah
or God
or Jesus
or nature
or the Bible
or good sense
or whatever

remember none of us live our lifes the same
and we have no right as humans to put our personal standards believes religions on another...doing that is just saying Im better my way is the best...None of us have the power to damn...and no one of WE should have any kind of gall as dots on eternity to be looking down on our own...because of their choice which I might add does no harm but TWO GROWN ASS PEOPLE doin what THEY want...

>Chike the issue is you reguard
>homosexuality as a sexual deviation...and
>because of that you lump
>it with the rest of
>the classic deviations, incest, pedophila..etc...you
>see homosexuality as inherently unnatural
>because that union cannot produce
>offspring...i could be wrong if
>so please correct...

I feel like saying you're wrong to assume that, because i'm trying to stay open-minded, and this post was meant to spur discussion for the benefit of me (and others) hearing different opinions. But no, you're correct - that's how I think about it right now. As long as you remember this post is not an attack, but an inquiry into what others think...

>For those that say it is
>"wrong" or (Chike) deviant, I
>have to ask, HOW THE
>HELL CAN WE TELL GROWN
>MEN AND WOMEN WHAT THEY
>FEEL AND WHAT TO DO
>WITH THEIR (STRESS THEIR) BODIES?

If it's not hurting others, we can't. But we can still have an opinion.

An opinion is fine...the problem is where the opinion goes...especially if one believes that because of a persons (person being adult male or female) particular attractions they will be damned or are wrong...this "open disscussion" on homosexuality is really just justification for another ism...hide behind freud if you want...your mind cant accept something so you deem it "wrong"...Im not gay so I know damn well I can say whay "homosexuality" really is...I do know that deeming something "wrong" or "different" has been a code word for oppression for a long time...Im with Nettrice, love everbody no matter, you dont judge when it comes down to it so why play God here.

oops

>An opinion is fine...the problem is
>where the opinion goes...especially if
>one believes that because of
>a persons (person being adult
>male or female) particular attractions
>they will be damned or
>are wrong...this "open disscussion" on
>homosexuality is really just justification
>for another ism...hide behind freud
>if you want...your mind cant
>accept something so you deem
>it "wrong"...Im not gay so
>I know damn well I
>can say whay "homosexuality" really
>is...I do know that deeming
>something "wrong" or "different" has
>been a code word for
>oppression for a long time...Im
>with Nettrice, love everbody no
>matter, you dont judge when
>it comes down to it
>so why play God here.
>

Not sure I saw where Freud came into this. Anyway, people have to draw lines in their mind. I agree that we must love everyone and we should be careful when it comes to judging others - as a Christian, I should not disagree with that - but accepting people and accepting practices are different. Who's gonna suggest that every possible human action should be considered OK? Throughout this thread, people are showing their condemnation of certain acts - pedophilia, bestiality, etc. Are they being oppressive to others by deeming these things "wrong"? I don't think so. You have drawn the lines in your mind and homosexuality is on the side of "OK".

Understand that for other people that line is not so easily drawn.

the way i see it is that you may draw a line as it applies to your own life and what you chose to teach to yours, but in the "Christian" sense of it all you have to accept and love your family which is the family of God...that means all of us. gay or straight (i think those are funny words).

i do think that the original argument is getting lost though. i wouldn't compare the sexual deviance of homosexuality to zoophilia. i would condur that if you are attracted to a physical form of the basis of gender the attraction is obviously related to sex which simply makes it (drum roll) sexual deviation.

if a man likes a man's body and a woman a woman's body she/ he likes the same "sex". right or wrong is not for me to say. i just say do your thang...

>i do think that the original
>argument is getting lost though.
> i wouldn't compare the
>sexual deviance of homosexuality to
>zoophilia. i would condur
>that if you are attracted
>to a physical form of
>the basis of gender the
>attraction is obviously related to
>sex which simply makes it
>(drum roll) sexual deviation.

What post were you reading? The original question was whether it is accurate to compare incest (between 2 consenting adults) and homosexuality and why or why not.

that was the post and i don't agree with the comparison. i think that the orginal question that you posed got lost in religious ideologies and such. but to answer your question again i think that is a highly unfair comparison...

Interesting...my take
>Arguments against homosexuality which use comparisons
>are often shot down because
>the anti-homophobic viewpoint deems the
>comparison unequal. For example: homosexuality-murder
>(not hurting anyone), homosexuality-bestiality (not
>consensual, for starters), homosexuality-pedophilia (not
>consenting adults, power relation).
Those arguments don't make much sense, you can be gay and still be a pedophile, there's a big difference between same-sex relationships and taking someone's life...those comparisons seem a bit extreme.

>What about incest? As acceptance of
>homosexuality as natural increases, I
>always wonder, will the day
>come when people say "If
>I want to have sex
>with my sister, that's my
>personal choice. What I do
>in the bedroom is nobody's
>business."
Looking at that argument logically, I fail to see how it doesn't make sense. Society pretty much decides what is "right" and what is "wrong"

>Is incest wrong?
Wrong is a judgement call, but for the sake of argument I'll give my answer
Yes and no...No if it's 2 consenting adults (again, logical reasoning), but yes, because it distorts reproduction (biological reasoning). In most species, the female identifies the best fit male for reproduction. With humans, they have the knowledge proven that the best fit male most likely isn't in their family, because of DNA distortions, and/or mutations...bottom line, biologically speaking, the closer the two consenting adults in the family, the more distortions in the offspring (or the chances of distortion)

>Is it a personal choice?
Personally I think both are personal choices, but that's my opinion

>Is it natural?
Reproductively speaking, both aren't natural. Ignorance in animals is what happens...with humans, they have most of the proof that they need for reproductive reasoning (it's been proven that homosexuality cannot reproduce children, and it's been proven that incest can distort the gene pool).
Is it right or wrong is a moral issue...I'm gonna make the assumption that natural is being equated with reproducing.

>How is homosexuality different?
Homosexuality is a lot more accepted in today's society than incest. Logically speaking, they aren't far apart...morally speaking is where the big divide takes place

>How is it different in a
>way that makes incest wrong/unnatural,
>but homosexuality OK?
There's a difference between wrong and unnatural...wrong is more of a judgement call than unnatural...

Peace
Rex

Abdul Jabbar, Muggsy Malone you
I don't know what that means but you know what I meant when I told you (c) Sean Price

this is an interesting post. it is actually intelligent dialogue and I am pleased to see that none of what I have read has appeared to be "personal attacks". that is a great thing.

I will say the following:

bestiality and pedophilia in my opinion are VERY UNFAIR comparisons to homosexuality. it isn't really a question of natural or unnatural. someone stated before that it is rare that the participants are fully consenting. I think that point is worth stating again.

I do have the opinion that homosexuality can be a deviation from the sexual "norm". I say this as I pose the question of where bisexuality comes into all of the debate?

I do believe that a "possibility" exists that it is an inclination "internally". I also believe it to be cultural/ social byproduct.

I do believe that the arguments used to condemn homosexuality can be used to condemn oral sex, anal sex, masturbation, etc. even between heterosexuals (as all of these things are not about procreation).

I do believe that judging any of these actions on a spiritual level is for no man/ woman to do. I think we make or accept our own life positions and accept until the day comes when the "answers" are revealed. This is a point that I am making to not open the flood gates and invite justification of murder and the like as I don't see the fair comparison there either.

in the most base form all of our spiritual or "rely ones" teach us to love and accept our neighbor. the creator is the only judge.

I do believe that society DOES set the standard for right and wrong. I do believe that it is wildly accepted that any act involving children is not accepted.

I think it is unfair to assume all homosexuals to have tendencies towards pedophilia.

zoophilia involves animals that surely have no desire to engage in sex acts with humans. it is clearly against their will (with the exception of dogs and females-no joke intended there. i have just male dogs do things like that).

so do what you do/ live and let live and see what comes of it all. bless you all.....

>
I do have the opinion that
>homosexuality can be a deviation
>from the sexual "norm".
>I say this as I
>pose the question of where
>bisexuality comes into all of
>the debate?
That's a good question, there seems to be no explanation for bisexuality.

>I do believe that the arguments
>used to condemn homosexuality can
>be used to condemn oral
>sex, anal sex, masturbation, etc.
> even between heterosexuals (as
>all of these things are
>not about procreation).
That makes a whole lot of sense. Other forms of sex aren't for reproduction, rather they are for pleasure of oneself and/or partner(s). Thus, other forms of sex should also be deemed as "unnatural"

>I do believe that judging any
>of these actions on a
>spiritual level is for no
>man/ woman to do.
>I think we make or
>accept our own life positions
>and accept until the day
>comes when the "answers" are
>revealed. This is a
>point that I am making
>to not open the flood
>gates and invite justification of
>murder and the like as
>I don't see the fair
>comparison there either.
>
>in the most base form all
>of our spiritual or "rely
>ones" teach us to love
>and accept our neighbor.
>the creator is the only
>judge.
Honestly, I don't know if you can religious beliefs in such a debate. As soon as you put God/Allah/The Creator in a debate, beliefs seems to dominate rather than reason. I'm glad that you do have such religious beliefs (and I have my own set of spiritual beliefs), but I think that once religion is put into a debate, then arguments like "It's in the BIBLE" or "GOD said so" start coming in, and that's too vague of an answer.

>I do believe that society DOES
>set the standard for right
>and wrong. I do
>believe that it is wildly
>accepted that any act involving
>children is not accepted.
I agree, society does determine whether certain lifestyles are "wrong" or "unacceptable"

>I think it is unfair to
>assume all homosexuals to have
>tendencies towards pedophilia.
It is unfair, bottom line is that it's moreso untrue than unfair. Pedophilia isn't limited to the homosexual population

Peace
Rex

Abdul Jabbar, Muggsy Malone you
I don't know what that means but you know what I meant when I told you (c) Sean Price

>Honestly, I don't know if you
>can religious beliefs in such
>a debate. As soon as
>you put God/Allah/The Creator in
>a debate, beliefs seems to
>dominate rather than reason. I'm
>glad that you do have
>such religious beliefs (and I
>have my own set of
>spiritual beliefs), but I think
>that once religion is put
>into a debate, then arguments
>like "It's in the BIBLE"
>or "GOD said so" start
>coming in, and that's too
>vague of an answer.


I understand what you're saying, but in my opinion the whole debate stems from religious beliefs. In my experience, religious beliefs are the reason why homosexuality has been condemned in the first place. The whole idea of procreation being the sole purpose for sex stems from religion. With the majority of society being religious in some way, that has had a huge impact on what is viewed as right or wrong. Thus being the reason why so many people believe homosexuality is wrong.

>I understand what you're saying, but
>in my opinion the whole
>debate stems from religious beliefs.
> In my experience, religious
>beliefs are the reason why
>homosexuality has been condemned in
>the first place. The
>whole idea of procreation being
>the sole purpose for sex
>stems from religion. With
>the majority of society being
>religious in some way, that
>has had a huge impact
>on what is viewed as
>right or wrong. Thus
>being the reason why so
>many people believe homosexuality is
>wrong.

i don't know about that so much. "rely ons" play a major role in the debate, but there is also that whole "super male" thing as well. i would venture to say that most homophobics are males. this is just because of the male dominated society that we live in and what our definition of "manliness" is. women seem to not have that fear of themselves in that sexual capacity. homophobia directly results in gay bashing and this is a way of men trying to prove masculinity. they lash out and form opinions about something that truly has no affect on their personal life, but to abhor it gives a feeling of power...i don't know. maybe i got off track again.

most of the condemnation and bashing comes from males though it also has to do with "rely ons" it is also important to note that women tend to be more tolerant in that regards. is it because they are less threatened by sexuality (at least in the sense of same sex relationships)?

having read the post and most of the responses, it seems that the main sticking point for those who are, for lack of a better word, against homosexuality is the 'choice' factor that they feel exists.

so, to those who are heterosexual, i'd ask:

when did you choose to be heterosexual?

|peace|cruciverbalist|muddy.angel.syntactics|masques and straitjackets
merchants of cool -- may 1st -- http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/cool/

>having read the post and most
>of the responses, it seems
>that the main sticking point
>for those who are, for
>lack of a better word,
>against homosexuality is the 'choice'
>factor that they feel exists.
>
>
>so, to those who are heterosexual,
>i'd ask:
>
>when did you choose to be
>heterosexual?
>
>|peace|cruciverbalist|muddy.angel.syntactics|masques and straitjackets
>merchants of cool -- may 1st
>-- http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/cool/


i'll play advocate and ask "when do bisexual people CHOOSE to be bisexual?" i think that they play a part in the debate or dialogue as well.

i actually don't have a real answer to Mosaic's questions as i venture that it just flows that way as society for the most part deters any "homosexual tendencies" or any thing considered feminine in boys at an early stage of childhood. there is a lot to be said of the ridicule that we receive as small children even doing something so "innocent" as playing with dolls or dressing up with older girs. there isn't much room to "experiment" with anything considered effeminate. the same is of girls as well. tom boys are looked down on after puberty hits in. most are shunned and chastized as lesbian.

so i don't know that we "choose" to be anything. you know after further thought you pose an interesting question. it is interesting as i can respond that i do have a definite attraction to a certain sex. i don't know if it is by "choice", but i do. i don't have any inclination towards another sex.

this is good. it will be interesting to see how your question is replied to by others...

I like the question posed here too. Very good.

Choosing to be hated/persecuted by the majority of society is pretty much a choice that i dont think any logical person would make. Since its just like some "oh, i think i will be gay today."

But..i dont think most will answer this, most likely they will just ask another question or ignore it.


Peace.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
get ta yippidy & yappin about the mouf:
aim=QweenFiyah
yahoo=kisszion
_________________________________
*Open Your 3rd Eye*
http://www.geocities.com/kisszion/cleansing.html
________________________________________

http://members.blackplanet.com/ZionzFire
________________________________________
OkayPoets In the Heeezey
http://www.welcome.to/okaypoets/

i will play "advocate" and (yes) i will pose another question:

does anyone is society who has behaviors not deemed "social acceptable" or that may go against the norm actually "invite" the consequences of persecution? i don't think that folks wholeheartedly go into anything "happy" or "careless" about persecution.

my answer to the question is that i don't think that "persecution" is as widespread in this modern society. i think that culturally people are more indifferent to same sex relationships where as in the past there were serious efforts made to disguise one's sexual practice. nowadays it is NOT that big of a deal. don't get me wrong, i am not discounting the attrocities that anyone has to suffer. i just think that if you can transplant your self to a community where you don't "stand out" or don't have to be concerned about persecution the "risks" aren't so high anymore. i remember the example from the movie "boiler room" when the italian character told the gay character that he thought gays should be rounded up and point on an island. the gay character replied that new york was that island.

my point is unless you are living somewhere in nowhereville, usa making the choice to wear your sexual agenda on your sleeves is not that difficult to make before. the days of glory holes and dirty little secrets are gone. gay culture is everywhere you turn (will and grace, birdcage, george michael "coming out" and nobody cared, etc).

before this present day this may have been a difficult choice, but currently it is not that big of a deal. plus you can still be gay and not a sole know it.

so to answer the question of persecution, i don't think that the former risk exists anymore.

>I like the question posed here
>too. Very good.
>
>Choosing to be hated/persecuted by the
>majority of society is pretty
>much a choice that i
>dont think any logical person
>would make. Since its just
>like some "oh, i think
>i will be gay today."
>
>
>But..i dont think most will answer
>this, most likely they will
>just ask another question or
>ignore it.
>
>
>Peace.
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>get ta yippidy & yappin about
>the mouf:
>aim=QweenFiyah
>yahoo=kisszion
>_________________________________
>*Open Your 3rd Eye*
>http://www.geocities.com/kisszion/cleansing.html
>________________________________________
>
>http://members.blackplanet.com/ZionzFire
>________________________________________
>OkayPoets In the Heeezey
>http://www.welcome.to/okaypoets/

as i posted that i thought of something else:

in contemporary times i would say that it may even be considered "chic" to be gay in some circles. living where i do i feel like being a "lipstick lesbian" or "bi/ queen" is "in style.

in a day where a kiss between 2 women (ally mcbeal/ friends) is a BIG DEAL i go as far as saying that the so-called taboo is now hip. i see women pretending to be gay or bi ALL the time. kissing and dancing in the clubs and while walking around. these are women who shunned this a few years ago. are they "coming out"? maybe they are just in style like the latest sun glasses in a jay z song. it has to be addressed in the debate about choice.

where i live they don't get "persecuted". men FLOCK to them and by the bottles of whatever.

the gay men also seem EXTRA COOL all of a sudden. linked to the same thing. no woman is complete without her gay friend that she can hang out with. women in my city don't even has women as friends anymore. they only have gay male friends. they don't leave home without them like a new purse. so...


>I like the question posed here
>too. Very good.
>
>Choosing to be hated/persecuted by the
>majority of society is pretty
>much a choice that i
>dont think any logical person
>would make. Since its just
>like some "oh, i think
>i will be gay today."
>
>
>But..i dont think most will answer
>this, most likely they will
>just ask another question or
>ignore it.
>
>
>Peace.
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>get ta yippidy & yappin about
>the mouf:
>aim=QweenFiyah
>yahoo=kisszion
>_________________________________
>*Open Your 3rd Eye*
>http://www.geocities.com/kisszion/cleansing.html
>________________________________________
>
>http://members.blackplanet.com/ZionzFire
>________________________________________
>OkayPoets In the Heeezey
>http://www.welcome.to/okaypoets/


"Shit, them niggas is bad as hell and ain't nothing you can do about that but to accept it and go buy a postcard." - Anonymous

http://www.thesquareegg.com

http://www.mp3.com/thesquareegg

>Choosing to be hated/persecuted by the
>majority of society is pretty
>much a choice that i
>dont think any logical person
>would make. Since its just
>like some "oh, i think
>i will be gay today."

bismillah

they dont choose to be "hated","persecuted", etc.....it just "comes w/ the territory".

ok. what do you think about the civil rights marches of the 60s?
do you think they had an IDEA of what was going to happen to them? i do. but, they accepted these risks for the sake of what they believed in!

can you see how this correlates with the chioce of homosexuality?
they believe in it and are willing to stand up for it, and at the same time they are willing to take a fall for it.


Allah says in the 2nd surah, Al-Baqarah(The Cow) 2.25: But give glad tidings to those who believe and work righteousness, that their portion is Gardens, beneath which rivers flow. Every time they are fed with fruits therefrom, they say: "Why, this is what we were fed with before," for they are given things in similitude; and they have therein companions pure (and holy); and they abide therein (for ever).

subhaanakallahumma wabihamdika ashhadu anla ilaha illa anta astaghfiruka wa attuubu ilaika

Really interesting comment, abduhu. I'd like to hear what others have to say.

But everybody should go down to reply #74 and answer my question!

>so, to those who are heterosexual,
>i'd ask:
>
>when did you choose to be
>heterosexual?

I didn't.

On a talk show I was watching awhile ago, an audience member stood and said, "Are you going to tell me that if God came down today and said, 'oops...everyone should really be dealing with the same sex,' that you'd be able to switch, just like that?"

The panelist tried to come off on some God's-always-right or I'd-just-switch-then type vibe, but the point had been made.

Who would "choose" (or at the very least risk) persecution? to be disowned by family? death at the hands of a drunk homophobe? social and emotional ostracism?

Maybe some need to believe that gay people adore suffering personally, professionally, and socially for loving who they love...





~~~SPITFIRE: 6/28/01~~~
carameldom@hotmail.com
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Bmore-Okayplayers

"The entire world is being driven insane by this single phrase: "My religion alone is true." ...Who can make a system from Divine Mystery? But if any sincere practitioner, within whatever culture or religion, prays and meditates with great devotion & committment to Truth alone, Your Grace will flood his mind and heart..." ~~Ramakrishna

"Ignorance: The Verbal Airborne Disease" (c) my friend Ty

"cats pop champagne/over misery and pain/like slaves on the ship/talkin 'bout/who got the flyest chains" ~~Talib Kweli

~~~~
http://omidele.blogspot.com/
http://rahareiki.tumblr.com/
http://seatofbliss.blogspot.com/

>Who would "choose" (or at the
>very least risk) persecution? to
>be disowned by family? death
>at the hands of a
>drunk homophobe? social and emotional
>ostracism?

I would agree that this is the strongest argument why homosexuality isn't a choice. Without getting into the genetic 'disease' thing, though, I don't think it's perfect. Gay people feel feelings that society doesn't like; before, they had to hide it more, now they can be more out in the open (no pun intended). How does that make them different from people who have tendencies, feelings that come from within, that society still condemns? Why would we offer treatment to pedophiles if they could simply choose not to feel the way they do as easy as "I think I'll be attracted to little girls today, but tomorrow I'll be cool"? (if it was like that, we would just jail 'em and forget about it). On the contrary, some people end up feeling things that are not healthy - maybe for innocent others, as in pedophilia, maybe for themselves and others like themselves...

Question: what do you consider homophobia to be? If anti-gay feelings could be put on scale, we might put don't-think-it's-right on one end and we-need-to-burn-them-all on the other. is everyone on the scale homophobic? Does the person who can respect gay people and have them as friends qualify for a term that seems to imply desperate fear?

I hate to bring this post back to the first page - it's not what I want people to think I'm all about.

But I think my question about homophobia question above is interesting.

And I'm not willing to make it into a new post.

If no one answers now, I'll let it go. But it's not a question that would offend anyone, so I don't know why people would want to ignore it.