Homosexuality=Modernism????

Lifestyle Relationships
81

Re: Homosexuality=Modernism????

^Quraan has already labelled them unnatural. Therefore, YES, they CAN be labelled unnatural.

Now that we all have established our POVs, let's agree to disagree.

GS P H O T O G R A P H Y
82

We are homo sapiens, a subspecies of the kingdom animalia. We ARE animals.

Some animals eat their babies, often due to stress and anxiety. Some humans kill their children for the same reasons, though in some cultures they may not eat them, in others they do. There are reasons species do what they do, and for human beings (as well as several other animals), sex and bonding does not exist solely between male and female. Contrary to popular belief, the sole reason for bonding is not always reproduction. When scientists have found that genetics may likely play a role in homosexuality, it's time to wake up and realize that it's in our blood.

Sehri and Iftaar 2012
Sehri and Iftaar 2012
83

Fyi, human beings are animals.

I guessed you missed out on your biology courses.

84

You missed the point. You can deem it morally wrong, but when you call it a crime (which was stated), and unnatural, then you have to back it up.

I fail to see how I follow any herd, as I don't solely base my beliefs on an auto-authoritative source spoon fed to me.

But who knows. Maybe I am a sheep, since the majority of the world's population is SO accepting of homosexuals (notice the sarcasm?). But at least I'm not the kind of person who's more likely to commit a hate crime because of my intolerance. I'm more likely the type of person to intervene and pick up the pieces.

And don't use religion as an excuse to be intolerant. It's a cop out.

85

Thank you.

But it's obvious that the bigotry and biases here won't allow these people to wake up and look at the evidence we have. Saying it's immoral is one thing, saying it's unnatural is an entirely different ballpark.

86

Sometimes I feel that people should be really careful in what they advocate to be natural or unnatural or when they decide to fight for the rights of any particular group of people, because at times nature might test them to see if they hold true to their words.

I know people who are not homosexual, but would sit for hours debating that homosexuality is natural, but I am also very sure (after spending time with them) that if at any stage of life, their daughter decides to marry a lesbian or their son marries a gay, their pony little world would shatter into pieces and they would do anything to convince their child that homosexuality is not natural as they would never allow their child to be "involved" with a person of the same gender, because their tiny little heart would break if their children decide a way for themselves that would close the "practical" doors to their wish of seeing their grandchildren.

^ This behavior is very close to that of a hypocrite, to say the least.

I might be wrong in any non-Muslim's point of view, but I feel most Muslims would agree to this. Allah (swt) knows BEST!

87

Re: Homosexuality=Modernism????

I guess for me, my religion plays a huge role in my thought process. That is not to say it doesnt for others or Im an angel but simply stating the way I think.

If Allah swt says homosexuality is immoral, wrong and unnatural then I believe it. He has provided everything for me, steered me clear of so many calamities, why would I not trust his judgement here? In my experience, when we arent satisfied with certain rules or explanations, its simply because we arent looking hard enough for the reasons behind it OR we simply dont understand it.

He has also specifically forbid us from unnecessary/pointless violence. Meaning, Im 100% tolerant of their behavior as long as it's not imposed on my beliefs, my family, etc. I would never support any sort of violence against homosexuals but I would definitely not be a part of encouraging it or saying its morally alright. Its not.

88

BUT ARE WE ANIMALS, even though if it happens in the animal Kingdom? This is the message of Allah and Muhammad (saw) > don't live like animal!!! I have nothing against homos or lesbos, but I condemn it like Allah does and like Muhammad (saw) does.

If Homosexuality is genetic, then I do not believe in Allah anymore.

89

You don't think labelling another's views as bigoted or intolerant, even though they have quite compelling reasons to hold those views, is in effect side stepping debate? You don't think those words carry a negative connotation? You are accusing Muslims for holding long standing beliefs of being BAD. Big-boy words aside, that is the bottom line. That makes you bigoted towards the Islamic stance, paeans to tolerance or freedom aside.

Publically vituperating people with what is essentially negative rhetoric is exactly what you are doing, hence my comment about competing bigotries. You may think yourself above that, but I beg to disagree.

The so-called right of homosexuals to be RECOGNIZED as a legitimate social group reduces the right of those who wish to use religion to shape or affect such rights essentially limits the practice of religion. Holding a view is useless if you can't take action on it, nor even express it without fear of social ostracization.

That's not a complaint, but an observation. Yes, the "other" side is doing exactly that...but please spare me if you think you're above it.

90

Why does being genetic imply it's legitimate? Yes, my eye colour, height, etc. have a genetic basis. So does my diabetes. Am I persecuted for my diabetes? No. Because it doesn't have me act out certain behaviours. Had there been a genetic disorder that caused people to steal, would we legitimize it? No. We'd recognize it as a problem. I'm all for sympathizing with homosexuals if there is in fact a genetic link, but that in no way excuses bad behaviour. The first step, though, would be to recognize that they suffer from a disorder. The fact is, many homosexuals hate the genetic argument, as it raises the 'disorder' question...something they don't want to be further stigmatized with.

Further, are you suggesting religious reasons are not valid reasons? If so, why? Especially in the context of societies that are deliberately an proudly non-secular.

91

Bonobo monkeys rape their young as a punitive measure. This is natural behaviour, (or rather, behaviour seen in nature). Humans should never do this, nor ever advocate this. Discuss.

[quote]

There are reasons species do what they do, and for human beings (as well as several other animals), sex and bonding does not exist solely between male and female. Contrary to popular belief, the sole reason for bonding is not always reproduction. When scientists have found that genetics may likely play a role in homosexuality, it's time to wake up and realize that it's in our blood.

[/quote]

Indeed there are reasons species do what they do, like esatblish moral orders. Why is this somehow "unnatural"?

Further, bonding is an odd term (unless it is a jargon I'm not familiar with). Certain animal species are perhaps much more faithful than humans. There is no one bonding behavior observed among humans. Social reasons and conditions seem to be the major driving force between the various rituals we have (including multiplicity in partners) around mate selection...reducing it down to genetics, regardless of one's stance on the isue, is crazy. Reducing sexuality down to a sexual act, however, is not.

The criminalization of homosexuality is no more or less different than the criminalization of adultry, polygamy, incest, and so on.

Khawab
92

What is disgusting is you playing that card, and not realizing that the male side of the equation (i.e. reducing males to a sack of sperm) had been missed. It's this kind of clap-trap that is used to stifle debate. I doubt the intent of the poster was to reduce woman down to "a sack of eggs and a uterus". Or is intent no longer important?

Khawab
93

Well said, people seem to have forgotten the context of the discussion...

94

With what? Homosexuality violates an established social order. Period. It's criminal, as anything else is, because it is defined to be so.

It's totally disingenuous for anyone on either side of the debate to take the word "unnatural" so literally...it can also imply deviation from established and (defined) patterns of behaviour or customs.

To suggest we're using religion as an excuse to be a cop-out is quite silly. We're trying to live by the parameters of a faith...again, in the context of Pakistani society, this is perfectly fine and very much "natural".

95

it is in nature to kill and maime,incest and theft. let us all embrace nature.

96

Re: Homosexuality=Modernism????

besides many guys that indulge in sodomy have wives and kids?how does this scientifically work?

But e Maghroor
97

Nothing more than nonsensical rhetoric.

I don't believe I have the right to police your beliefs, or that the government should marginalize you or persecute you for your backwards beliefs. You and your ilk, on the other hand, believe in the government mandated oppression of homosexuals because you think its immoral. I have every right to consider your beliefs absurd (as you do mine), but I'm not the arguing for the forced imposition of my belief system on society.

Philosophy of Mind
98

Re: Homosexuality=Modernism????

hmm an article i foudn interesting

Is There a "Gay Gene"?

Many laymen now believe that homosexuality is part of who a person really is * from the moment of conception.

The "genetic and unchangeable" theory has been actively promoted by gay activists and the popular media. Is homosexuality really an inborn and normal variant of human nature?

No. There is no evidence that shows that homosexuality is simply "genetic." And none of the research claims there is.Only the press and certain researchers do, when speaking in sound bites to the public.

How The Public Was Misled

In July of 1993, the prestigious research journal *Science *published a study by Dean Hamer which claims that there might be a gene for homosexuality. Research seemed to be on the verge of proving that homosexuality is innate, genetic and therefore unchangeablea normal variant of human nature.

Soon afterward, National Public Radio trumpeted those findings. Newsweek ran the cover story, "Gay Gene?" The Wall Street Journal announced,"Research Points Toward a Gay Gene...Normal Variation."

Of course, certain necessary qualifiers were added within those news stories. But only an expert knew what those qualifiers meant. The vast majority of readers were urged to believe that homosexuals had been proven to be "born that way."

In order to grasp what is *really *going on, one needs to understand some littleknown facts about behavioral genetics.

Gene Linkage Studies

Dean Hamer and his colleagues had performed a common type of behavioral genetics investigation called the "linkage study." Researchers identify a behavioral trait that runs in a family, and then:
a) look for a chromosomal variant in the genetic material of that family, and

b) determine whether that variant is more frequent in family members who share the particular trait.
To the layman, the "correlation" of a genetic structure with a behavioral trait means that trait "is genetic"-in other words, inherited.

In fact, it means absolutely nothing of the sort, and it should be emphasized that there is virtually no human trait without innumerable such correlations.

Scientists Know the Truth about "Gay Gene" Research

But before we consider the specifics, here is what serious scientists think about recent genetics-of-behavior research. From Science, 1994:
Time and time again, scientists have claimed that particular genes or chromosomal regions are associated with behavioral traits, only to withdraw their findings when they were not replicated. "Unfortunately," says Yale's [Dr. Joel] Gelernter, "it's hard to come up with many" findings linking specific genes to complex human behaviors that have been replicated. "...All were announced with great fanfare; all were greeted unskeptically in the popular press; all are now in disrepute."{1}Homosexual Twin Studies

Two American activists recently published studies showing that if one of a pair of identical twins is homosexual, the other member of the pair will be, too, in just under 50% of the cases. On this basis, they claim that "homosexuality is genetic."

But two other genetic researchers--one heads one of the largest genetics departments in the country, the other is at Harvard--comment:
While the authors interpreted their findings as evidence for a genetic basis for homosexuality, we think that the data in fact provide strong evidence for the influence of the environment.{2}The author of the lead article on genes and behavior in a special issue of Science speaks of the renewed scientific recognition of the importance of environment. He notes the growing understanding that:
... the interaction of genes and environment is much more complicated than the simple "violence genes" and intelligence genes" touted in the popular press.The same data that show the effects of genes, also point to the enormous influence of nongenetic factors.{3}More Modest Claims to the Scientific Community

Researchers' public statements to the press are often grand and far-reaching. But when answering the scientific community, they speak much more cautiously.

"Gay gene" researcher Dean Hamer was asked by Scientific American *if homosexuality was rooted solely in biology. He replied:
"Absolutely not. From twin studies, we already know that half or more of the variability in sexual orientation is **not inherited*. Our studies try to pinpoint the genetic factors...not negate the psychosocial factors."{4}But in qualifying their findings, researchers often use language that will surely evade general understanding making statements that will continue to be avoided by the popular press, such as:
...the question of the appropriate significance level to apply to a nonMendelian trait such as sexual orientation is problematic.{5}Sounds too complex to bother translating? This is actually a very important statement. In layman's terms, this means:

It is not possible *to know what the findings mean--*if anything--since sexual orientation cannot possibly be inherited in the direct way eyecolor is.

Thus, to their fellow scientists, the researchers have been honestly acknowledging the limitations of their research. However, the media doesn't understand that message. Columnist Ann Landers, for example, tells her readers that "homosexuals are born, not made." The media offers partial truths because the scientific realityis simply too unexciting to make the evening news; too complex for mass consumption; and furthermore, not fully and accurately understood by reporters.

Accurate Reporting Will Never Come in "Sound Bites"

There are no "lite," soundbite versions of behavioral genetics that are not fundamentally in error in one way or another.

Nonetheless, if one grasps at least some of the basics, in simple form, it will be possible to see exactly why the current research into homosexuality means so littleand will continue to mean little, even should the quality of the research methods improveso long as it remains driven by political, rather than scientific objectives.

Understanding the Theory

There are only two major principles that need to be carefully understood in order to see through the distortions of the recent research. They are as follows:
1. Heritable does not mean inherited.

2. Genetics research which is truly meaningful will identify, and then focus on, only traits that are directly inherited.
Almost every human characteristic is in significant measure heritable. But few human behavioral traits are directly inherited, in the manner of height, for example, or eye color. Inherited means "directly determined by genes," with little or no way of preventing or modifying the trait through a change in the environment.

How to "Prove" That Basketball-Players are Born that Way

Suppose you are motivated to demonstratefor political reasons--that there is a basketball gene that makespeople grow up to be basketball players. You would use the same methods that have been used with homosexuality: (1) twin studies; (2) brain dissections; (3) gene "linkage" studies.

The basic idea in twin studies is to show that the more genetically similar two people are, the more likely it is that they will share the trait you are studying.

So you identify groups of twins in which *at least one *is a basketball player. You will probably find that if one identical twin is a basketball player, his twin brother is *statistically more likely *be one, too. You would need to create groups of different kinds of pairs to make further comparisons--one set of identical twin pairs, one set of nonidentical twin pairs, one set of sibling pairs, etc.

Using the "concordance rate" (the percentage of pairs in which *both *twins are basketball players, or *both *are not), you would calculate a "heritability" rate. The concordance rate would be quite high--just as in the concordance rate for homosexuality.

Then, you announce to the reporter from Sports Illustrated: "Our research demonstrates that basketball playing is strongly heritable." (And you would be right. It would be "heritable"--but not directly inherited. Few readers would be aware of the distinction, however.)

Soon after, the article appears. It says:

"...New research shows that basketball playing is probably inherited. Basketball players are apparently 'born that way!' A number of outside researchers examined the work and found it substantially accurate and wellperformed..." But no one *(other than the serious scientist) *notices the media's inaccurate reporting.

What All Neuroscientists Know:
The Brain *Changes *with Use

Then you move on to conduct some brain research. As in the well-known LeVay brain study which measured parts of the hypothalamus, your colleagues perform a series of autopsies on the brains of some dead people who, they have reason to believe, were basketball players.

Next, they do the same with a group of dead nonbasketball players. Your colleagues report that, on average, "Certain parts of the brain long thought to be involved with basketball playing are much larger in the group of basketball players."

A few national newspapers pick up on the story and editorialize, "Clearly, basketball playing is not a choice. Not only does basketball playing run in families, but even these people's brains are different."

You, of course, as a scientist, are well aware that the brain changes with use...indeed quite dramatically. Those parts responsible for an activity get larger over time, and there are specific parts of the brain that are more utilized in basketball playing.

Now, as a scientist, you will not **lie *about this fact, *if asked (since you will not be), but neither will you go out of your way to offer the truth. The truth, after all, would put an end to the worldwide media blitz accompanying the announcement of your findings.

** Gene Linkage Studies:
"Associated With" Does Not Mean "Caused By"**

Now, for the last phase, you find a small number of families of basketball players and compare them to some families of nonplayers. You have a hunch that of the innumerable genes likely to be associated with basketball playing (those for height, athleticism, and quick reflexes, for example), some will be located on the x-chromosome.

You won't say these genes cause basketball playing because such a claim would be scientifically insupportable, but the public thinks "caused by" and "associated with" are synonymous.

After a few false starts, sure enough, you find what you are looking for: among the basketball-playing families, one particular cluster of genes is found more commonly.

With a Little Help from the Media

Now, it happens that you have some sympathizers at National People's Radio, and they were long ago quietly informed of your research. They want people to come around to certain beliefs, too. So, as soon as your work hits the press, they are on the air: "Researchers are hot on the trail of the Basketball Gene. In an article to be published tomorrow in Sports Science..."

Commentators pontificate about the enormous public-policy implications of this superb piece of science. Two weeks later, there it is again, on the cover of the major national newsweekly: "Basketball Gene?"

Now what is wrong with this scenario? It is simple: of course basketball playing is associated with certain genes; of course it is heritable. But it is those intermediate physiological traitsmuscle strength, speed, agility, reflex speed, height, etc.-which are themselves directly inherited. Those are the traits that make it likely one will be able *to, and will *want to, play basketball.

In the case of homosexuality, the inherited traits that are more common among male homosexuals might include a greater than average tendency to anxiety, shyness, sensitivity, intelligence, and aesthetic abilities. But this is speculation. To date, researchers have not yet sought to identify these factors with scientific rigor.

What the majority of respected scientists now believe is that homosexuality is attributable to a combination of psychological, social, and biological factors.

From the American Psychological Association "[M]any scientists share the view that sexual orientation is shaped for most people at an early age through complex interactions of biological, psychological and social factors."{6}

From "Gay Brain" Researcher Simon LeVay "At this point, the most widely held opinion [on causation of homosexuality] is that multiple factors play a role."{7}

From Dennis McFadden, University of Texas neuroscientist: "Any human behavior is going to be the result of complex intermingling of genetics and environment. It would be astonishing *if it were not true for homosexuality."{8}

**From Sociologist Steven Goldberg* "**I know of no one **in the field who argues that homosexuality can be explained without reference to environmental factors."{9}

As we have seen, there is no evidence that homosexuality is simply "genetic"--and none of the research itself claims there is.

Only the press and certain researchers do, when speaking in sound bites to the public.

]*The above article was adapted from two sources: a paper entitled, "The Gay Gene?" by Jeffrey Satinover, M.D., in The Journal of Human Sexuality, 1996, available by calling (972) 713-7130; and past issues of the National Association of Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) Bulletin. For an in-depth discussion of homosexuality and genetics, consult Dr. Satinover's 1996 book, Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth, published by Hamewith/Baker Books. *

99

Oxymoronic statement. You are making a value proposition...and if anything, the hedonitic aspects of homosexuality predate the morality around it...so if anyone is regressing and induldging in backward-looking beliefs, it would be those who want to legitimize homosexuality.

[quote]

You and your ilk, on the other hand, believe in the government mandated oppression of homosexuals because you think its immoral.

[/quote]

Homosexuality is a behaviour, not a social grouping. It's no more opressive than regulation of heterosexual behaviour. I suppose you have a problem with marraige, too...

[quote]

I have every right to consider your beliefs absurd (as you do mine), but I'm not the arguing for the forced imposition of my belief system on society.
[/quote]

If you prohibit and bar, (or support such restrictions), the religous from implementing laws as per their mores, then yes you are.

100


LOL. Pico bohat acha andaaz e bayan hai.

Anyway on a serious note, yes there is no argument that it is against the law of the land in Pakisan, and should be punishabe as such.

On the other hand I think that the laws in Pakistan are discriminatory, and are designed to give advantage only to muslims. Call it short sightedness or unfair or arrogance or ignorance, but thats the way it is.