Tackling Homosexuality and its Origins...
Me and my friend are now dedicated to tackle everything related to homosexuality, from the causes, to the origins, to the facts and fiction regarding it, and the questions and concerns that you all may have towards it.
Just a little background on us. We are both Ahmadi Muslims, my friend is a religious scholar and I am his, if you would like to call it, his side kick, lol, and we have started on our first take.
I am about to copy and paste his first take on here and my job is to dissect it and find flaws within the writings as well as find out the opinions of what other people think about it.
So after reading the First Take, if you would like to, please take some time to share your thoughts, point out any mistakes, and generally give feedback on this research.
Hopefully one day, God willing, these controversies regarding homosexuality will one day be resolved.
---Here we go---
(This writing may have typos in it, since it was created as a rough document.)
---
:HISTORY CHECK:
The Greeks are reported to have enlisted members of society for homosexuality as a means for population control. Meaning homosexuality was practiced historically based on the idea that it would facilitate as a control of human population.
“The purpose of marriage was to continue the line and to guarantee that the husband was father of the wife’s children...Since homosexuality cannot guarantee procreation and the family, the focus in the relationship between the man and the boy was on the aesthetical dimension and pleasure, which could be difficult to legitimize morally and socially.”
The Greeks have based their “Woman for business and boys for pleasure” philosophy on the idea that such tendencies and behavior is beneficial for society since it allows society to regulate its population, otherwise society would populate to such a degree that life for any individual would become far too difficult to bear. The question is who would sign up for death? If a group of people went hiking on the Rocky Mountains, and they were engulfed by a great storm and all communication was severed. In the midst of this turmoil, food was scarce and not abundant enough for the whole party to survive the extent of the storm, so the party had a counsel.
They suggested that some of them should be sacrificed for the good of the group, at this point, who would raise their hands? People might remember such individuals as heroic exemplars but who in their right mind would suggest death before exploring other means? Why would anybody sign up for suicide? And how cruel would a society be if they, just like this isolated incident of the mount, selected such individuals themselves to be the sacrificial lambs for society. Historically, society’s elders would choose young mates who were selected to be among those who would help society regulate its population. How cruel is it to select young individuals without their knowing the circumstance to sign them up for death? This is what homosexuality and the propaganda behind it is suggesting. They are suggesting again to our youth to sign up for this lifestyle, they claim it is a natural inclination that you should not fear to embrace. They continue to preach the idea that it is your right to accept this lifestyle and as you accept it, you are endowed with the responsibility to spread its tenants and bring others into its fold. This is at the height of exploitation through modern freedom. Unfortunately the youth who are swayed by this propaganda forget to read the fine print, and that fine print is simple.
“Society wants to continue a progressive and comfortable lifestyle without the effects of over population, so if you can kindly sign here, you will take it for the team and end your line so that society as a whole can continue to flourish with its many amenities which would otherwise be threatened.”
Can we allow our youth to sign this death wish, never. It is clear that even historically people realized that its implications were the end of a group of society. The Greeks did not hide the fact that their purpose was to prevent over population. They even understood that such lifestyles warranted a group of society to be sacrificed for the good of the rest of society. Today those implications are not any different, the only difference is society has chosen to conceal them and openly allow sections of society to sign that death wish.
If it is closely examined, the fear of overpopulation that was existent among those early communities seems unwarranted since mankind has since then multiplied many fold. Therefore, if today our problem is with population control, then other avenues must be considered before ever signing up a part of society to agree to death so that the rest of us can continue to flourish and succeed.
It is this realization that is hoped would settle in the minds of those who have recently jumped on the band wagon.
What can be seen here is that homosexuality in the evolutionary process has played no greater role than population control.
:WHY NOT FACTOR:
The classic response by homosexuals is simply “why not”. In today’s society, various social behaviors have taken root which base their justification on the “why not” concept.
In essence what the “why not” concept entails is that society should not restrict members of society from experimenting different lifestyles, or society should have no problem with a section of society indulging in various behaviors which although present no apparent benefit but the harm is only minuscule or unidentified and therefore giving it a try shouldn't be anybody else’s concern. Unfortunately the central problem with basing social practices on a mere “why not” concept is that such practices act as a gateway to other social habits which are not only harmful but detrimental to the overall welfare of society.
If we explore the why not bases for things then when homosexuals justify their behavior with such concept, a simple response would be that basing things on a mere why not concept will lead to other socials evils. Who can stop a brother and sister for exploring a sexual partnership. Although relationships between brother and sister are illegal, but what can stop a section from society for indulging in such lifestyle while also petitioning society to not only allow such behavior but to even accept it with all of its demands. If homosexuality is left loose simply on the bases of the why not concept then it is bound to open a Pandora’s box. Both behaviors have apparent health risks and yet both can be justified with a simple why not excuse. In fact this pandoras box is slammed wide open and it would be only a matter of time that behaviours as damaging as bestiality will be petitioned in society to be legalized and accepted. If the door of homosexuality is opened, then society will be forced to open the door of bestiality.
Even the Holy Prophet (sa) had realized this subtle decadence from homosexuality to other forms such as bestiality. It was narrated that Ibn Abbaas said: The Prophet Muhammad (sa) said… “cursed is the one who has intercourse with an animal, cursed is the one who des the action of the people of Lot.” If we continue this train of social evils, society will not be able to prevent persons in the near future from indulging in acts such as establishing relations with children who consent. In fact if you look back in history you will see that the root of homosexuality of the past existed between young boys and adult males. Society is setting the framework to adopt habits of old which were not beneficial for that time and neither will they prove beneficial for this time.
-------(END OF FIRST TAKE)--------
Just a little background on us. We are both Ahmadi Muslims, my friend is a religious scholar and I am his, if you would like to call it, his side kick, lol, and we have started on our first take.
I am about to copy and paste his first take on here and my job is to dissect it and find flaws within the writings as well as find out the opinions of what other people think about it.
So after reading the First Take, if you would like to, please take some time to share your thoughts, point out any mistakes, and generally give feedback on this research.
Hopefully one day, God willing, these controversies regarding homosexuality will one day be resolved.
---Here we go---
(This writing may have typos in it, since it was created as a rough document.)
---
:HISTORY CHECK:
The Greeks are reported to have enlisted members of society for homosexuality as a means for population control. Meaning homosexuality was practiced historically based on the idea that it would facilitate as a control of human population.
“The purpose of marriage was to continue the line and to guarantee that the husband was father of the wife’s children...Since homosexuality cannot guarantee procreation and the family, the focus in the relationship between the man and the boy was on the aesthetical dimension and pleasure, which could be difficult to legitimize morally and socially.”
The Greeks have based their “Woman for business and boys for pleasure” philosophy on the idea that such tendencies and behavior is beneficial for society since it allows society to regulate its population, otherwise society would populate to such a degree that life for any individual would become far too difficult to bear. The question is who would sign up for death? If a group of people went hiking on the Rocky Mountains, and they were engulfed by a great storm and all communication was severed. In the midst of this turmoil, food was scarce and not abundant enough for the whole party to survive the extent of the storm, so the party had a counsel.
They suggested that some of them should be sacrificed for the good of the group, at this point, who would raise their hands? People might remember such individuals as heroic exemplars but who in their right mind would suggest death before exploring other means? Why would anybody sign up for suicide? And how cruel would a society be if they, just like this isolated incident of the mount, selected such individuals themselves to be the sacrificial lambs for society. Historically, society’s elders would choose young mates who were selected to be among those who would help society regulate its population. How cruel is it to select young individuals without their knowing the circumstance to sign them up for death? This is what homosexuality and the propaganda behind it is suggesting. They are suggesting again to our youth to sign up for this lifestyle, they claim it is a natural inclination that you should not fear to embrace. They continue to preach the idea that it is your right to accept this lifestyle and as you accept it, you are endowed with the responsibility to spread its tenants and bring others into its fold. This is at the height of exploitation through modern freedom. Unfortunately the youth who are swayed by this propaganda forget to read the fine print, and that fine print is simple.
“Society wants to continue a progressive and comfortable lifestyle without the effects of over population, so if you can kindly sign here, you will take it for the team and end your line so that society as a whole can continue to flourish with its many amenities which would otherwise be threatened.”
Can we allow our youth to sign this death wish, never. It is clear that even historically people realized that its implications were the end of a group of society. The Greeks did not hide the fact that their purpose was to prevent over population. They even understood that such lifestyles warranted a group of society to be sacrificed for the good of the rest of society. Today those implications are not any different, the only difference is society has chosen to conceal them and openly allow sections of society to sign that death wish.
If it is closely examined, the fear of overpopulation that was existent among those early communities seems unwarranted since mankind has since then multiplied many fold. Therefore, if today our problem is with population control, then other avenues must be considered before ever signing up a part of society to agree to death so that the rest of us can continue to flourish and succeed.
It is this realization that is hoped would settle in the minds of those who have recently jumped on the band wagon.
What can be seen here is that homosexuality in the evolutionary process has played no greater role than population control.
:WHY NOT FACTOR:
The classic response by homosexuals is simply “why not”. In today’s society, various social behaviors have taken root which base their justification on the “why not” concept.
In essence what the “why not” concept entails is that society should not restrict members of society from experimenting different lifestyles, or society should have no problem with a section of society indulging in various behaviors which although present no apparent benefit but the harm is only minuscule or unidentified and therefore giving it a try shouldn't be anybody else’s concern. Unfortunately the central problem with basing social practices on a mere “why not” concept is that such practices act as a gateway to other social habits which are not only harmful but detrimental to the overall welfare of society.
If we explore the why not bases for things then when homosexuals justify their behavior with such concept, a simple response would be that basing things on a mere why not concept will lead to other socials evils. Who can stop a brother and sister for exploring a sexual partnership. Although relationships between brother and sister are illegal, but what can stop a section from society for indulging in such lifestyle while also petitioning society to not only allow such behavior but to even accept it with all of its demands. If homosexuality is left loose simply on the bases of the why not concept then it is bound to open a Pandora’s box. Both behaviors have apparent health risks and yet both can be justified with a simple why not excuse. In fact this pandoras box is slammed wide open and it would be only a matter of time that behaviours as damaging as bestiality will be petitioned in society to be legalized and accepted. If the door of homosexuality is opened, then society will be forced to open the door of bestiality.
Even the Holy Prophet (sa) had realized this subtle decadence from homosexuality to other forms such as bestiality. It was narrated that Ibn Abbaas said: The Prophet Muhammad (sa) said… “cursed is the one who has intercourse with an animal, cursed is the one who des the action of the people of Lot.” If we continue this train of social evils, society will not be able to prevent persons in the near future from indulging in acts such as establishing relations with children who consent. In fact if you look back in history you will see that the root of homosexuality of the past existed between young boys and adult males. Society is setting the framework to adopt habits of old which were not beneficial for that time and neither will they prove beneficial for this time.
-------(END OF FIRST TAKE)--------
Comments375
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
Keep up the good work After--Life! We need to start bring Gods word back into the mainstream again! We cant let satan trick us up! Satan is indeed trying his best to make us think sin is good, but we cant fall for that!
May God be with you always
May God be with you always
You do know he's Muslim right?
I know. And there's nothing wrong with Muslims.
After--Life, i am sorry but i really hate to see such a bigoted ''research''. Really, it's saddening to see someone like you that i really appreciate taking part in...this.
And i tough coming back to DeviantART was a good idea at the start.
And i tough coming back to DeviantART was a good idea at the start.
Muslims are like Christians, basket cases.
...
You do realize that is not how homosexuality today works... AT ALL.
You do realize that is not how homosexuality today works... AT ALL.
TRAMPLED.
TRAMPLED BY TEAL DEERS.
TRAMPLED BY TEAL DEERS.
Sometimes, on a good day, I come to think, "Hey, there's actually hope for the future, man! Things are changing!"
Then I visit the Philosophy and Religion forums.
Then I visit the Philosophy and Religion forums.
Pretentious, fallacy ridden garbage.
It makes two, primary claims in this particular piece:
1) That the promotion of homosexuality is propaganda to promote the underlying cause of preventing over population.
2) Homosexuality will lead to a multitude of other perversions, and cause society to delve into moral depravity in the sexual field.
To very easily and handily refute number one, there are thousands of years of history between the Greeks and us. Their motives are not our motives, it's that simple. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that the motives in our present day society are population control. The first point is hardly worthy of a conspiracy theory, as at least conspiracy theories have shady and heavily pixelated photographs.
Secondly, the first point claims that society asks people to be homosexual, or that society is "recruiting" homosexuals. The most egregious, erroneous, and disgusting load of bullshit aside from the first point. No, society asks people to keep in mind that who they are is infinitely more important than what other people want them to be. The identity is a state of being where the human being is most comfortable and most at ease being, and if the person is most comfortable having sex with members of the same sex -- because, you know, they're homosexual -- then they should feel free to live the life they are most comfortable living.
It also implies by its claim that homosexuals are recruited that homosexuality does not occur naturally. I'm not going to argue about this, yes it does, objectively and irrefutably.
The second point is also ludicrous. Things like bestiality are not morally acceptable for legitimate reasons. It is mistreatment of animals, and animals do not have the logical capability to consent, in the same sense that a child doesn't have the logical capability to consent to sex either because they aren't adults who can understand the consequences of their actions. One does not lead to the other, because one has a legitimate reason to be illegal. The other, homosexuality, does not.
The author uses his research into Greek society as terrible excuse for research, and pretends like it has any relevance to his point whatsoever, when in reality it doesn't and when left standing alone it is a pretentious, abominable, and fallacy ridden garbage with fancy verbage.
Oh, and a theme throughout the piece that isn't horribly disgusting but simply wrong is that sexuality is about pragmatics. It isn't about what is beneficial for society, but beneficial for the person, because it has no effects on society. There are more heterosexuals than homosexuals, and it will stay that way for a long time, so there's no shame in letting people do as they please with their lives instead of suppressing what is wholly and entirely natural for some people.
It makes two, primary claims in this particular piece:
1) That the promotion of homosexuality is propaganda to promote the underlying cause of preventing over population.
2) Homosexuality will lead to a multitude of other perversions, and cause society to delve into moral depravity in the sexual field.
To very easily and handily refute number one, there are thousands of years of history between the Greeks and us. Their motives are not our motives, it's that simple. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that the motives in our present day society are population control. The first point is hardly worthy of a conspiracy theory, as at least conspiracy theories have shady and heavily pixelated photographs.
Secondly, the first point claims that society asks people to be homosexual, or that society is "recruiting" homosexuals. The most egregious, erroneous, and disgusting load of bullshit aside from the first point. No, society asks people to keep in mind that who they are is infinitely more important than what other people want them to be. The identity is a state of being where the human being is most comfortable and most at ease being, and if the person is most comfortable having sex with members of the same sex -- because, you know, they're homosexual -- then they should feel free to live the life they are most comfortable living.
It also implies by its claim that homosexuals are recruited that homosexuality does not occur naturally. I'm not going to argue about this, yes it does, objectively and irrefutably.
The second point is also ludicrous. Things like bestiality are not morally acceptable for legitimate reasons. It is mistreatment of animals, and animals do not have the logical capability to consent, in the same sense that a child doesn't have the logical capability to consent to sex either because they aren't adults who can understand the consequences of their actions. One does not lead to the other, because one has a legitimate reason to be illegal. The other, homosexuality, does not.
The author uses his research into Greek society as terrible excuse for research, and pretends like it has any relevance to his point whatsoever, when in reality it doesn't and when left standing alone it is a pretentious, abominable, and fallacy ridden garbage with fancy verbage.
Oh, and a theme throughout the piece that isn't horribly disgusting but simply wrong is that sexuality is about pragmatics. It isn't about what is beneficial for society, but beneficial for the person, because it has no effects on society. There are more heterosexuals than homosexuals, and it will stay that way for a long time, so there's no shame in letting people do as they please with their lives instead of suppressing what is wholly and entirely natural for some people.
it's not often you find a text which manages to collect so many fallacies in one place. This probably counts as some sort of reference material.
You don't like gay people. Do you really think they care? Why don't you just stay out of other peoples bedrooms. Dressing it up in ignorance only makes you look even more ignorant. I mean really, when you even start referencing actual scientific theories, it quickly becomes onvious that you have absolutely no idea what you speak of.
I think my favourite is linking homosexuality and child molestation, that one always works well for you bigots doesn't it? Really charming tactic.
You don't like gay people. Do you really think they care? Why don't you just stay out of other peoples bedrooms. Dressing it up in ignorance only makes you look even more ignorant. I mean really, when you even start referencing actual scientific theories, it quickly becomes onvious that you have absolutely no idea what you speak of.
I think my favourite is linking homosexuality and child molestation, that one always works well for you bigots doesn't it? Really charming tactic.
It's given us all a wonderful example of how not to form an argument.
Do you know which group which has the fastest growing rate of AIDS? Heterosexual females.
I wonder why...
Your friend's research, in my opinion, is a bit skewed. Homosexuality among the Greeks and what we see today are very different. In Greece, grown men, apart from their domestic heterosexual relationships, were expected to woo and court an 'eromenos' ie. pre-pubescent boy until he reached, i think, 17 yrs of age, whereupon he started a relationship with another young lad.
A grown man with another grown man in a relationship, which is our modern opinion of homosexuality, was considered perversion.
Today, a grown man with a boy is called pedophilia and is considered as perversion.
Thus you see, homosexuality is a relative concept and has too many variations across time and culture which nullifies your historical viewpoint.
Also, if u insist that homosexuality is a product of environmental forces such as media, Id like to point out that religion is also a product of environmental forces. If u want homosexuals to give up their acts of homosexuality, u should also encourage the religious, starting with urself, to give up their religious acts.
Would you please give me the references your friend has used to come up with the conclusion that homosexuality was used by the Greeks to control population. As far as my knowledge goes, ancient cultures were susceptible to war which reduced manpower drastically and therefore encouraged breeding. (I am also of the opinion that Islam encourages many offspring, marriage at a young age and polygyny for the same reasons. I'd like if you could validate/refute this with adequate proof.)
A grown man with another grown man in a relationship, which is our modern opinion of homosexuality, was considered perversion.
Today, a grown man with a boy is called pedophilia and is considered as perversion.
Thus you see, homosexuality is a relative concept and has too many variations across time and culture which nullifies your historical viewpoint.
Also, if u insist that homosexuality is a product of environmental forces such as media, Id like to point out that religion is also a product of environmental forces. If u want homosexuals to give up their acts of homosexuality, u should also encourage the religious, starting with urself, to give up their religious acts.
Would you please give me the references your friend has used to come up with the conclusion that homosexuality was used by the Greeks to control population. As far as my knowledge goes, ancient cultures were susceptible to war which reduced manpower drastically and therefore encouraged breeding. (I am also of the opinion that Islam encourages many offspring, marriage at a young age and polygyny for the same reasons. I'd like if you could validate/refute this with adequate proof.)
If you're working under the assumption that homosexuals are bad simply because they can't reproduce, then you must also be against infertile couples and single parents, right?
It's not because, they cann't produce. It is the Law of God. It's abomination and against the nature of God, period. We read this truth in the book of Leviticus 22:18. We cann't get around that, no matter how we look at it.... "....Thou shalt not lie with "Mankind, as with Womankind." It is abomination."
What about infertile couples? Someone I knew had to get a hysterectomy due to health issues. Can she never have sex?
Except a gay man doesn't lie with another man as he would with a woman; he lies with a man as he would with a man. And a lesbian doesn't lie with men period. Plus the Bible's bullshit.
Okay, let us look at this more cleary. We can enhance this verse and harmonized them in the book of Romans 1:24-28........... Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves. Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever................ For this cause "God gave them up" unto vile affections for even their "Women" (bisexual) did change the natural use into that which is against nature. And, likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another. "Men with Men" (homosexual) working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, "God gave them over to a reprobate mind", to do those things which are not convenient. . . Romans 1:24-28."
Do realise that homosexual behaviour has been observed in about 1,500 animal species, so it's far from unnatural. In fact, there's even a species of "lesbian lizards". Yes, the New Mexico Whiptail (Cnemidophorus neomexicanus) is an all-female species that engages in lesbian intercourse to induce parthenogenesis (asexually producing offspring that are clones of themselves). Once more, your Bible is bullshit.
Notice they do not reply back 
The bible is indeed bullshit.
And a lesbian doesn't lie with men period.
-You can argue this for gold-star lesbians, but you seem to ignore that there are lesbians who do not act upon her own attraction, there are lesbians who would use men as masturbation device (it's possible to be interested, but not attracted in the abstract intrinsic conceptualized feeling(Oh, even attraction is relative to each people as people have different definitions, so it's abstract.)), and you seem to ignore that there are homoromantic females who wouldn't mind having sex with men, and there's more. So yes, there are lesbian who would actually sleep with men. Why do I have to see so many bullshit laymen that shows themselves little understanding of the sexuality topic as a whole? Do they just rely on their emotions and generalization instead of actual researches and analysis?
And a lesbian doesn't lie with men period.
-You can argue this for gold-star lesbians, but you seem to ignore that there are lesbians who do not act upon her own attraction, there are lesbians who would use men as masturbation device (it's possible to be interested, but not attracted in the abstract intrinsic conceptualized feeling(Oh, even attraction is relative to each people as people have different definitions, so it's abstract.)), and you seem to ignore that there are homoromantic females who wouldn't mind having sex with men, and there's more. So yes, there are lesbian who would actually sleep with men. Why do I have to see so many bullshit laymen that shows themselves little understanding of the sexuality topic as a whole? Do they just rely on their emotions and generalization instead of actual researches and analysis?
I was just pointing out that the Bible only appears to be against a very specific form of homosexuality, being "a man lying with a man as he would with a woman". Seeing as lesbians are women themselves, the passage doesn't apply to them.