Hacker News Reader

Comment by abeppu | Hacker News Reader

> you aren't cursed for having those desires, but for acting upon them

That sounds exactly as repressive and hateful that other major religion, as well as historical laws which punished homosexual acts in many western countries. You have highlighted the difference between our desires and our behavior, but you seem to deliberately avoid acknowledging that straight people are permitted an institution in which their desires can be met within constraints, but gay people are not.

"You're invited to participate in our faith so long as you scrupulously act like someone else for your whole life" sounds a lot like an unvitation.

View on HN

Islam pretty much is a framework for how you deal with God and for how your life here and hereafter will be according to that relationship. That's all it is.

You also acknowledge that even straight people have constraints in Islam, i.e. no sleeping around etc, why not also argue that it's somehow terrible that straight people have to repress their desire to fornicate?

"You're invited to participate in our faith so long as you turn your focus away from your base desires and towards God and the hereafter"

You're insinuating that you're being targeted or singled out whereas Islam "blanket-bans" entire categories of what are considered regressive behaviours such as overeating, you're not being targeted here, so can you stop with the victim complex please? Islam is as against environmental destruction, abuse of animals or overeating as much as it is against what it sees as wrongful sexual desire. What I feel like is being missed for the trees here is that the "holisticness" of Islam. It's against what it sees as destructive behavior, without prejudicing or singling out any specific group. Look at the higher purpose here.

I've said your description sounds "exactly as repressive and hateful" as another major religion and the laws of many western states until relatively recently. You're insinuating that Islam is being targeted or singled out whereas I will blanket label as homophobic any regime which masquerades as being even-handed because they generously permit queer people to pretend to be straight, so can you stop with the victim complex please?

Liberal humanism is against what it sees as destructive and oppressive behavior, without prejudicing or singling out any specific group. Look at the higher purpose here.

You've buried the lede that the core framework does see homosexual behavior as "wrongful sexual desire", "regressive behaviour".

You can accept that or not, but it's disingenuous to equate asking gays never to have sexual or romantic relationships, to asking non-gay people just to curb excess.

That's not an equal imposition, it feels like self-equivocating ad-hominem to read "you're not being targeted here, so can you stop with the victim complex please?"

If you agree that it's better for gay people to never experience intimacy, please just say so, without labelling the concern (that gay people may feel less invited) as ridiculous

Someone who has a thirst for illicit relationship with women must also refrain from doing so.

Forbidding a person from lusting anyone other than spouse whether they like it or not is no different than forbidding a person from having gay desires. And no amount of self identification can label that inhumane.

Under your axioms, it may be equivalent, but I think they're mistaken.

Orientation is not a choice, and is orthogonal to identification.

I believe that same-sex relationships can be as profoundly fulfilling, enriching, and pro-social as heterosexual relationships.

That marrying a straight woman with a gay man is profoundly unfulfilling for both.

And that denying a class of people something so profound, freely enjoyed by everyone else, and which does not harm anyone else, can indeed be seen as inhumane.

You say orientation isn't a choice even though bisexuals at least establish it as their free choice for relationship. Fine. Even if you correctly claim that some people may have an immutable orientation, why would you in your brilliant and far reaching wisdom think it would be inhumane for the same person to be celibate from that orientation? And further think it is inhumane for the person to engage in a relationship of another orientation?

I don't believe for a second any person has this immutable orientation, straight or gay. And likewise, I don't believe it is inhumane for a person to avoid a relationship that is illegitimate. Trying to argue otherwise is like arguing the color blue can also be seen as red.

I am not bisexual, but tried to be. The choice wasn't available.

Have you felt strong attraction for both sexes? If not, have you tried to?

If you tried to feel attraction but could not, you might need help on understanding what attraction is. Until you do, you won't know what love and harm is.

You feel attraction for both sexes, but choose to ignore one?

You choose to behave.

We are here. We do not harm each other. We do not harm other people. I believe God wills it. Peace, Nas.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com