Re: Do philosophical theories
(8.7 billion -1) spices poop in front of each other.
(8.7 billion -1) spices sex in front of each other.
(8.7 billion -1) spices sex among siblings.
you see the pattern ?
Re: Do philosophical theories
Brother Monk
Kya mirchon ke bare baaten kiyey hein … 
Restored attachments:
Re: Do philosophical theories
I've already answered this ...
Animals go around naked, kill and eat flesh without cooking it, have homosexual sex out of dominance ... look people can follow the animals if they like - but we ought to get our examples from the best humans not from animals ... We follow the prophets of God.
The percentage of animals that do this is small compared to all animals something like 0.1% and even if they all did this - it does not justify the practice for us ... who have greater sense and ought to have greater control over our urges.
I don't know what the medical implications are for this either ...
The fact is there are lures like traps set in this world ... and from a religious point of view some natural things are to be confirmed and other ones are to be subdued ...
Animals kill to eat. Humans fight wars and kill just because.
As for your last para, I don't intend to debate religion. But this is Philosophy and Spirituality forum. Not.religion forum. Secondly, per your religion, this ought to be subdued. So what? That is just your religion. Not everyone in this earth subscribes to your religion. Multiculturalism is the norm.
Now if you had made this argument is the Religion forum , I would not make above comments. But the lines between Philosophy and Religion have been blurred by such comments. Both have as much to do with each other as Apple and stone.
Your last sentence is also the best case one can make to keep religion out of govt.
Re: Do philosophical theories
"I wonder why 1500 species practice this unnatural sexual behavior."
I know psyah.
This line above is sign, that human minus concept of God, cant tell up from down. or day from night.
I don't know why is hard to accept our humbleness.
But i guess some people want to "venture in" in wild at night with head lights off.
Re: Do philosophical theories
Animals kill to eat. Humans fight wars and kill just because.
As for your last para, I don't intend to debate religion. But this is Philosophy and Spirituality forum. Not.religion forum. Secondly, per your religion, this ought to be subdued. So what? That is just your religion. Not everyone in this earth subscribes to your religion. Multiculturalism is the norm.
Now if you had made this argument is the Religion forum , I would not make above comments. But the lines between Philosophy and Religion have been blurred by such comments. Both have as much to do with each other as Apple and stone.
Your last sentence is also the best case one can make to keep religion out of govt.
I shall keep religion out ...
My point however was that animals do lots of things we should not copy them all ...
Homosexual activity may have medical repercussions too ... but the worst aspect is that it is a type of indulgence ... and indulgence is bad in anything ... from a philosophical point of view, this does not mean we attack gays ... it means we advise them against it much in the same way we advise against nymphomania, overeating, etc ...
It's not about love ... as the animal kingdom proves - it is about urge ... basic lower instinct to have ones erogenous zones stimulated, when science analyses homosexuality it measures it based on their attraction to the same gender. It is very clinical and love and relationships have no bearing in this conversation.
For if it was about love - then I hope that all Muslims love the prophet Muhammad (SAW) more than anyone ... both men and women ... yet when it comes to perverted ideas of "love" i.e. its equation with sex then no further could that contrast be ... So religion cannot be blamed for preventing men loving men or women loving women ...
I believe there is harm in it which is why I believe it is haram ... now science can either prove that or disprove that ... whether this should be made illegal or not is another matter ... If society can learn to discourage it then it need not be made illegal with a punishment for the crime ... but if society does not discourage this then it will spread and that is when problems will be seen that we may not as yet be fully aware of ...
Re: Do philosophical theories
I've already answered this ...
Animals go around naked, kill and eat flesh without cooking it, have homosexual sex out of dominance ... look people can follow the animals if they like - but we ought to get our examples from the best humans not from animals ... We follow the prophets of God.
The percentage of animals that do this is small compared to all animals something like 0.1% and even if they all did this - it does not justify the practice for us ... who have greater sense and ought to have greater control over our urges.
I don't know what the medical implications are for this either ...
The fact is there are lures like traps set in this world ... and from a religious point of view some natural things are to be confirmed and other ones are to be subdued ...
the fact that animals are homosexuals just show that its something in natura and that it cannot be called 'unnatural', and that small number of animals in most species go for same sex as thier innate desire including in humans. not saying that humans must follow animals, but there is plenty of evidence in nature that it's not a choice. there are studies that show certain biological differences in homosexuals vs heterosexuals including in the brain, chemistry and genetics. from religious point of view, you're 100% right. i am not speaking from religious point of view however, so i donot see it as being wrong.
Re: Do philosophical theories
the fact that animals are homosexuals just show that its something in natura and that it cannot be called 'unnatural', and that small number of animals in most species go for same sex as thier innate desire including in humans. not saying that humans must follow animals, but there is plenty of evidence in nature that it's not a choice. there are studies that show certain biological differences in homosexuals vs heterosexuals including in the brain, chemistry and genetics. from religious point of view, you're 100% right. i am not speaking from religious point of view however, so i donot see it as being wrong.
Peace bella88
In case you have forgotten I already made the distinction and recognise before you having to impress the point that homosexuality is in nature ... But that is not an argument for it to be right philosophically speaking ... Because another meaning of nature is to be in accordance with the natural order ... And that it is not ... There are many things in nature that are not in accordance with the natural order ...
It's not innate only humans argue that point ... All homosexual animals are actually bisexual actually they are just sex maniacs ...and do it with anything that moves ... That neither makes them homosexual nor anything else. Humans are the only creature who will avoid having sex the normal way and claim to be of a given orientation. Show me any specific animal that when given the chance to mate with the opposite sex has no interest but when sees the same sex wants to go for it ...
Now let's be more graphic about this ... From the rectum we defecate, excrete waste material ... How many germs, bacteria, horrid smells lurk there? A child could tell you it's a disgusting place ... Why is it pleasurable? Because if it didn't bring relief we would never want to go for a dump ... The call of nature ... i.e. Going for a number 2, is a time consumption, smelly act, can be quite dirty too ... We would despise it if it didn't bring us some relief ... That passage should be one way ...
Oral sex ... Well equally so ... Those places known as our privates are not the cleanest of places ... Nesting grounds for bugs and bacteria ... Putting the mouth there is dire and I would say medically unwise ...
Please argue that there are medical benefits in that sort of behaviour ... Please do.
Re: Do philosophical theories
I shall keep religion out ...
My point however was that animals do lots of things we should not copy them all ...
Homosexual activity may have medical repercussions too ... but the worst aspect is that it is a type of indulgence ... and indulgence is bad in anything ... from a philosophical point of view, this does not mean we attack gays ... it means we advise them against it much in the same way we advise against nymphomania, overeating, etc ...
It's not about love ... as the animal kingdom proves - it is about urge ... basic lower instinct to have ones erogenous zones stimulated, when science analyses homosexuality it measures it based on their attraction to the same gender. It is very clinical and love and relationships have no bearing in this conversation.
For if it was about love - then I hope that all Muslims love the prophet Muhammad (SAW) more than anyone ... both men and women ... yet when it comes to perverted ideas of "love" i.e. its equation with sex then no further could that contrast be ... So religion cannot be blamed for preventing men loving men or women loving women ...
I believe there is harm in it which is why I believe it is haram ... now science can either prove that or disprove that ... whether this should be made illegal or not is another matter ... If society can learn to discourage it then it need not be made illegal with a punishment for the crime ... but if society does not discourage this then it will spread and that is when problems will be seen that we may not as yet be fully aware of ...
Tha ks for keeping religion out of it.
The rest is YOURSELF PERSONAL opinion. Gays can love or hate as much as straights. Society needs to do no such thing as shunning this behavior. Society needs to shun thoughts such as yours. And move forward being kind to one and all. And that's my personal opinion.
Re: Do philosophical theories
Tha ks for keeping religion out of it.
The rest is YOURSELF PERSONAL opinion. Gays can love or hate as much as straights. Society needs to do no such thing as shunning this behavior. Society needs to shun thoughts such as yours. And move forward being kind to one and all. And that's my personal opinion.
I didn't say gays can't love ... I said men can love each other without it being what two men do sexually - because two men can love each other dearly without anything to do with being gay as shown by us majority Muslims who have their own families, but have friends - companions - people we love.
Re: Do philosophical theories
I didn't say gays can't love ... I said men can love each other without it being what two men do sexually - because two men can love each other dearly without anything to do with being gay as shown by us majority Muslims who have their own families, but have friends - companions - people we love.
You compared gays to animals. And said it is not love. It is urge. I suppose that can be said about ANY sexual activity - straight or gay. And it can also be said a man and woman can love each other without sexual activuty. Just as u suggested aby men caring abt ea h other without activity.
I am not touching religion. So will ignore ur bringing in "us muslims" as part of ur reasoing.
for me it's simple. Treating fellow human beings with kindness and empathy comes before piety.
Re: Do philosophical theories
peace psyah
Peace bella88
In case you have forgotten I already made the distinction and recognise before you having to impress the point that homosexuality is in nature ... But that is not an argument for it to be right philosophically speaking ... Because another meaning of nature is to be in accordance with the natural order ... And that it is not ... There are many things in nature that are not in accordance with the natural order ...
It's not innate only humans argue that point ... All homosexual animals are actually bisexual actually they are just sex maniacs ...and do it with anything that moves ... That neither makes them homosexual nor anything else. Humans are the only creature who will avoid having sex the normal way and claim to be of a given orientation. Show me any specific animal that when given the chance to mate with the opposite sex has no interest but when sees the same sex wants to go for it ...
Not true. all animals are not actually bisexual, many are exclusively homosexual aswell. even in the presence of opposite gender, they are attracted to the same gender. homosexuality exists in all species, homophobia exists only in 1, and that is humans.
[quote]
Now let's be more graphic about this ... From the rectum we defecate, excrete waste material ... How many germs, bacteria, horrid smells lurk there? A child could tell you it's a disgusting place ... Why is it pleasurable? Because if it didn't bring relief we would never want to go for a dump ... The call of nature ... i.e. Going for a number 2, is a time consumption, smelly act, can be quite dirty too ... We would despise it if it didn't bring us some relief ... That passage should be one way ...
[/quote]
since we are getting graphic, you should know it is perfectly normal to achieve orgasm through that, and anal sex stimulates prostate in men, and also plenty of heterosexual women also engage in this sort of anal penetration behavior too because of abundant nerve endings. of course it is pleasurable why else do they engage in it? since you talk about anus being used for #2, what do males use for #1? i should feel completely grossed out then that the same organ a man uses to pee , is using for sex! see the problem here with your explanation of dirty and gross? Also a womans mouth or hands weren't made to please a man's 'organ'either yet they do it all the time, doesn't make it right or wrong. disgusting or not, thats personal opinion which can differ from people to people. just because something sounds gross to you, doesn't mean it needs to be criminalized or condemned.
[quote]
Oral sex ... Well equally so ... Those places known as our privates are not the cleanest of places ... Nesting grounds for bugs and bacteria ... Putting the mouth there is dire and I would say medically unwise ...
[/quote]
i have never heard a doctor advise against oral sex. you might think its 'unclean', that doesn't make it a universal fact. most straight couples do engage in such 'unnatural' oral behavior.
[quote]
Please argue that there are medical benefits in that sort of behaviour ... Please do.
[/quote]
so if something doesn't have medical benefit, it should be banned? what are benefits of heterosexual behavior other than producing children? and even that, is a problem as the world is highly over populated.
secondly, something shouldn't be banned because it gives no medical benefit.things that should be banned are the ones that cause harm. please show me what is so harmful about homosexuality?
once again, you are entitled to have your opinion on homosexuality as being wrong as per your faith and religious reasoning but to dictate how others must live their lives isn't fair either. even if its something wrong according to you, does it really matter what someone does with their lives when it doesn't have an impact on anyone else ?
Re: Do philosophical theories
You compared gays to animals. And said it is not love. It is urge. I suppose that can be said about ANY sexual activity - straight or gay. And it can also be said a man and woman can love each other without sexual activuty. Just as u suggested aby men caring abt ea h other without activity.
I am not touching religion. So will ignore ur bringing in "us muslims" as part of ur reasoing.
for me it's simple. Treating fellow human beings with kindness and empathy comes before piety.
Agreed ... Sex is an urge ... Treating people with kindness is piety or at least is part of it ... It is when that urge gets out of hand it manifests in to various abominations ...
Re: Do philosophical theories
peace psyah
Not true. all animals are not actually bisexual, many are exclusively homosexual aswell. even in the presence of opposite gender, they are attracted to the same gender. homosexuality exists in all species, homophobia exists only in 1, and that is humans.
since we are getting graphic, you should know it is perfectly normal to achieve orgasm through that, and anal sex stimulates prostate in men, and also plenty of heterosexual women also engage in this sort of anal penetration behavior too because of abundant nerve endings. of course it is pleasurable why else do they engage in it? since you talk about anus being used for #2, what do males use for #1? i should feel completely grossed out then that the same organ a man uses to pee , is using for sex! see the problem here with your explanation of dirty and gross? Also a womans mouth or hands weren't made to please a man's 'organ'either yet they do it all the time, doesn't make it right or wrong. disgusting or not, thats personal opinion which can differ from people to people. just because something sounds gross to you, doesn't mean it needs to be criminalized or condemned. i have never heard a doctor advise against oral sex. you might think its 'unclean', that doesn't make it a universal fact. most straight couples do engage in such 'unnatural' oral behavior.
so if something doesn't have medical benefit, it should be banned? what are benefits of heterosexual behavior other than producing children? and even that, is a problem as the world is highly over populated. secondly, something shouldn't be banned because it gives no medical benefit.things that should be banned are the ones that cause harm. please show me what is so harmful about homosexuality? once again, you are entitled to have your opinion on homosexuality as being wrong as per your faith and religious reasoning but to dictate how others must live their lives isn't fair either. even if its something wrong according to you, does it really matter what someone does with their lives when it doesn't have an impact on anyone else ?
I am arguing from the perspective of philosophical natural order being based on what is beneficial to us and what is harmful to us ... Just because you are unaware of the harms you think homosexuality harms no one ... But it does ... It harms themselves and society ... And some things have harms that outweigh the benefits ... Sexual perversion is a neuroses and controlled heterosexual urges which are tapped out in a specific way is the natural way for humans to control them.
Since certain things are shunned in society that does not make them necessarily banned ... Who is arguing for that? I am not ... You are putting words in my mouth if you think that ... My stance is philosophical ... Arguing that homosexuality is wrong and that it is right to maintain its taboo and it is right to shun it in a similar way to sex before marriage, etc ... It is not right to harm people or treat them differently.
When a philosophical conclusion is drawn it is not all of a sudden implied that the law must change ... No ... It merely means that similar conclusions drawn from religion can be drawn from pure thought and analysis too ... Just as it my opinion to follow my faith and not impose it on any one likewise my philosophical conclusions are the same.
Re: Do philosophical theories
I am arguing from the perspective of philosophical natural order being based on what is beneficial to us and what is harmful to us ... Just because you are unaware of the harms you think homosexuality harms no one ... But it does ... It harms themselves and society ... And some things have harms that outweigh the benefits ... Sexual perversion is a neuroses and controlled heterosexual urges which are tapped out in a specific way is the natural way for humans to control them.
so please explain the harms of homosexuality and how it endangers others. how does homosexuality harm the society?
Re: Do philosophical theories
Agreed ... Sex is an urge ... Treating people with kindness is piety or at least is part of it ... It is when that urge gets out of hand it manifests in to various abominations ...
And why is it that when gays have sex their urge according to you gets out of hand. Why doesn't the same reasoning applicable to straight sex. Why is it that according to u heterosexual sex is not an abomination?
No piety is not equal to kindness. They r also not mutually exclusive.
One can be pious and kind.
One can be pious and have abominable views about fellow human beings and their lifestyle.
Re: Do philosophical theories
I am arguing from the perspective of philosophical natural order being based on what is beneficial to us and what is harmful to us ... Just because you are unaware of the harms you think homosexuality harms no one ... But it does ... It harms themselves and society ... And some things have harms that outweigh the benefits ... Sexual perversion is a neuroses and controlled heterosexual urges which are tapped out in a specific way is the natural way for humans to control them.
Since certain things are shunned in society that does not make them necessarily banned ... Who is arguing for that? I am not ... You are putting words in my mouth if you think that ... My stance is philosophical ... Arguing that homosexuality is wrong and that it is right to maintain its taboo and it is right to shun it in a similar way to sex before marriage, etc ... It is not right to harm people or treat them differently.
When a philosophical conclusion is drawn it is not all of a sudden implied that the law must change ... No ... It merely means that similar conclusions drawn from religion can be drawn from pure thought and analysis too ... Just as it my opinion to follow my faith and not impose it on any one likewise my philosophical conclusions are the same.
Perspective of philosophical natural order. Big words. Means jack.
Just because you think views such as your harm no one.. but they do. Such views harm yourself and society. And such views have harms that outweigh benefits. Such views are symptomatic of neorosis. And having progressive and accepting views is the only way for humans to control them.
Just because discriminatory views are shunned in progressive society doesn't mean they should be banned. I am not arguing for that. My stance is philosophical. Arguing that such views are wrong and should be shunned by society. I am not arguing for change of law. That such views be banned. It means conclusions drawn from decency can be drawn from pure thought and analysis.
Re: Do philosophical theories
And why is it that when gays have sex their urge according to you gets out of hand. Why doesn't the same reasoning applicable to straight sex. Why is it that according to u heterosexual sex is not an abomination?
No piety is not equal to kindness. They r also not mutually exclusive.
One can be pious and kind. One can be pious and have abominable views about fellow human beings and their lifestyle.
I've explained all of that already ... Heterosexual sex is meant for reproduction ... Sex of all kinds is pleasurable ... But pleasure is not the philosophical marker for what is right, because there are many pleasurable things that harms us and many that do not ... Or many that do not harm us as much ...
for me kindness is part of piety ... If a person is not kind he is not pious.
Re: Do philosophical theories
Perspective of philosophical natural order. Big words. Means jack.
Just because you think views such as your harm no one.. but they do. Such views harm yourself and society. And such views have harms that outweigh benefits. Such views are symptomatic of neorosis. And having progressive and accepting views is the only way for humans to control them.
Just because discriminatory views are shunned in progressive society doesn't mean they should be banned. I am not arguing for that. My stance is philosophical. Arguing that such views are wrong and should be shunned by society. I am not arguing for change of law. That such views be banned. It means conclusions drawn from decency can be drawn from pure thought and analysis.
My views may harm the interests of those who want to harm society by indulging in their own selfish desires ... But ultimately my views are a sympathetic view towards those people not one of contempt ... And you get no bonus marks for rearranging what
I write and saying it back to me ... It sounds absurd like you are arguing for the sake of it ...without making your own case.
Re: Do philosophical theories
ite keeps getting better and better. Seems like human have more tendencies too.
Seems like there are other other natural animal are crawling up on society too.
Bella please apply you logic for “feeling good” “natural in animals”
Re: Do philosophical theories
I've explained all of that already ... Heterosexual sex is meant for reproduction ... Sex of all kinds is pleasurable ... But pleasure is not the philosophical marker for what is right, because there are many pleasurable things that harms us and many that do not ... Or many that do not harm us as much ...
for me kindness is part of piety ... If a person is not kind he is not pious.
I other words homosexual act is as abominable as heterosexual act without intent to procreate?
OK. Crystal clear.