Reasoning behind ruling on Gay/Lesbian relationships

Okay, I know that the Quran claims gay/lesbian relationships to be a no-no.

I don’t personally disagree with this ruling.

However, my roommate and I have been engaged in a discussion this night (and dammit its 3 in the morning), so we want to wrap this up so we can actually make it to class tomorrow morning without falling dead,

I’d like to ask you guys on the topic, because I figure its easy to throw this headache on your shoulders…

Okay so our argument goes like this:

Roomie’s question:

Premise 1: Gay/lesbian relationships are victimless.

Premise 2: Any act that causes people to be victimized, should be outlawed.

Conclusion: Homosexuality should not be outlawed.

Definition of victim: someone hurt against their will.

My explanation:

Premise 1: Homosexuality is an unhealthy practice.

Premise 2: Homosexuality is unnatural.

Conclusion 3: Any act that is sexually unnatural and unhealthy is to be outlawed.

my definition of unnatural: Since, mechanically, two male bodies don’t “fit” together and two female bodies don’t “fit” together, but a male and a female’s does and this union produces child whereas the first two instances do not…homosexuality is “unnatural” and heterosexuality is “natural”.

My definition of unhealthy: unhealthy in a mental and physical sense. And no, I don’t think that homosexuality is the primary reason for the spread of AIDS or anything like that. I think its unhealthy because your body is conflicting with your mind, because your body wants to have sex with the opposite-sex, and your mind is asking it to do otherwise - creating an uneasy tension, and your spirit is not at rest. Unhealthy in the mental sense also that it causes social problems, because people do not want to accept you and your family is shocked at it, and you come to realize that you cannot produce children from such a union, so you think ‘either its this gay lifestyle or I marry a woman and have kids’, etc.

Unhealthy in a physical sense: since you’re putting a part of your body where it does not belong, you are creating the possibility of physically hurting yourself (I hope I don’t need to feed your imaginations here).

Her response to my above argument: She agrees that the body-mind is in conflict in such a union, yet she says “your body also wants candy, and that isn’t healthy for it either”. Are you going to outlaw chocolate? And also, if this is the reasoning ag/homosexuality, that its “unnatural”, then why is oral sex allowed…the mouth was not made to hold a man’s sexual organ.

2ndly, in terms of social problems…she public opinion doesn’t dictate wrong/right. People thought slavery was right, but now its agreed that
slavery is wrong.

About the realization that you can’t have kids in homosexual union, what about a heterosexual infertile couple. Also, infertile folks are allowed to get married, when they wont be having kids.

If two people have a bond, and they want to spend the rest of their lives together, who is the law to say that they can’t, if no one is getting hurt by it, regardless of how it makes people feel uncomfortable?

She also says that she doesn’t understand how any law should dictate how to deal with sexually unnatural and victimless actions.

People have the right to say how they feel about something, and I’m not discussing what your personal opinions are on it, but I’m questioning the govt’s authority to act against a homosexual couple.


Okay guys, please do not respond with “well, its in the quran, and if that’s what it says, then that’s what you do”, cuz she’s not a muslim, and she wants to know the RATIONAL reason behind the ruling that homosexuality is morally wrong. I’ve thrown reasons at her, like the unnatural thing and unhealthy things, and dudes, she’s not buying it. Maybe my definition of “unhealthy” and “unnatural” is too vague. If you guys find statistics or something, please put those forth. Any other rational reasoning is welcome.

[QUOTE]

Premise 1: Gay/lesbian relationships are victimless.

Premise 2: Any act that causes people to be victimized, should be outlawed.

Conclusion: Homosexuality should not be outlawed.

Definition of victim: someone hurt against their will.

[/QUOTE]

i presume you mean causing victimisation through that act, not as a result of that act.

in that case consider public nudity.

in a lot of systems it is considered illegal and contrary to commonly held notions of decency, even though it has no direct victims.

[QUOTE]
2ndly, in terms of social problems...she public opinion doesn't dictate wrong/right. People thought slavery was right, but now its agreed that slavery is wrong.
[/QUOTE]
Actually, public opinion does dictate wrong and right. Wrong and right are opinions so naturally they flucuate in any given society, but the the dominant view has a tangible manifestation: law.

The bit about slavery being ok once upon a time but not anymore--that just reflects the change that public opinion takes over time. For humans, there is no overriding universal morality. We cannot say what is morally right according to our opinion at this moment has always been, and always will be, right. That is, what people thought 150 years ago or 2000 years ago might seem barbaric to us in the present, but to them it was moral, them being the public majority opinion.

So, because humans can't define a universal morality as individuals or as societies, that is why we turn to religion. Religion, whether coming from Quran, the Bible, gitas, etc gives us that universal morality: God. What God wills, what He has dictated to us, regardless of time or place, is the definition of righteousness. It can be no other way. But take a look around and try to figure out which dictate is the right one.. everyone has their own God, everyone has their own picture of morality. That brings us back to the issue of free will. Every religion incorporates free will. And it is that that gives us conflicting moral opinions. There does exist a universal morality. There is a definite answer to your question. But free will in a large population can negate it.

So, being practical, should homosexuality be outlawed?
Yes, you just have to be in the majority.

but what are the practical reasons for it?

I mean, am I right when I say its unlawful in Islam, because its unhealthy and unnatural?

Or is there more to it?

Or is it not that at all?

Every rule I've read of in Islam has some reasoning behind it, some sort of logic...what is the logic behind outlawing homosexual acts, if its not hurting anyone? Or is it hurting someone?

ex. what are the negative side effects of homosexuality that could give cause for it being islamically unlawful? (besides the fact that God says its wrong)

PCG, the issue is simple one of the moral values of decency by which God expects his human creations to live by.

To understand what I mean, let's break away from the issue of homosexuality, and consider the case of a completely consensual heterosexual sexual relation between an unmarried 30 year old man and an unmarried 30 year old woman.

No-one is being victimised, or hurt in this case. All of your friend's arguments that homosexuality should not be outlawed would apply to the victimless case of this heterosexual relationship between unmarried, consenting adults.

However, this heterosexual relationship is outlawed by Islam, for being grossly against the moral values of Islam, which stipulate that acceptable sexual intercourse can only ever be between a man and his wife(or, for the feminists out there, between a woman and her husband). Any other sexual intercourse is an attack and threat to these values and to the kind of society that Islam aims to establish on this world.

well put ^^

[QUOTE]
but what are the practical reasons for it?
[/QUOTE]
Social effects.

You can't really use the reasoning that it's harmful. Alcohol and tobacco are harmful but if the subject is willing to risk that and others are willing to allow it, then there's not much to say otherwise.

There are several arguments regarding homosexuality's effects on society at large, but most of them wind up as simple generalizations and offend whoever you're arguing with instead of persuading them.

Being practical, the issue shouldn't be so much banning homosexuality.. rather, whether it should be suppressed and if so how. Law can't prevent someone from doing something when noone's looking--that would be a pointless law. So, if you decide it is wrong, then the question becomes what acts should be punishable.

When someone has sex in public, no matter what kind, that is illegal. If a person is forced into sex, no matter what kind, that is illegal. If someone is approached against their wishes (sexual harassment), no matter what kind, that is illegal. Etc. Already most of the major bases are covered by general laws.

What you're talking about is rights. Should the state recognize a person's homosexuality and afford them *all*the benefits others are guaranteed including marriage and social security, etc.

I've gotta run to lunch but I'll be back...
Sorry to give this in such a rambling manner, thing is you have to be clear on the details in these things otherwise you'll lose the argument. And, yes, I'll bring this back to religion..