Homosexuality: Nature or Choice? A Review of Scientific and Moral Facts

Epigraph:

Do they seek a religion other than Allah’s, while to Him submits whosoever is in the heavens and the earth, willingly or unwillingly, and to Him shall they be returned? (Al Quran 3:84)

One or the other or both?

One or the other or both?

By Ijaz A. Rauf, Ph.D. irauf@solargridenergy.ca

Summary: Recent trends in promiscuous societies are exceeding all norms breaking cultural, societal and religious barriers, joining directly millenniums old culture of people of Sodom. People take pride in their promiscuous and alternate lifestyle, expect – in fact enforce it on others to accept their lifestyle as normal and perfectly natural. In this effort besides labelling, those who do not accept such behaviour to be normal, as homophobic, they also use argumentative techniques aimed at providing evidence for their choices to be natural. Media has also supported homosexual lobby by portraying their behaviour as genetic, at times hormonal or biological, presenting it as everything but a choice. This article examines the science behind such claims, discusses scientifically and logically the reasons behind such behaviour, analyzes the morality and ethics and briefly discusses the medical consequences of alternate lifestyles. Finally it presents arguments to express the need for individual and societal reformation for the continued survival of human species.

genes-environment-choices

Introduction: Religious verdict about homosexuality is quite clear; it is considered a sin and leads to inviting the wrath of Almighty God. The story of Lot in all Abrahamic religions speaks volumes about the destruction of a whole nation because of such acts as is recorded in all the Holy Scriptures (Torah, Bible and the Quran).  The Holy Quran that is considered to be the apex of religious revelation records about the people of Lot and their behaviour as follows:

And we sent Lot, when he said to his people, ‘Do you commit an abomination such as no one in the world ever did before you? You approach men with lust instead of women. Nay, you are a people who exceed all bounds.’ [1]

And at another place in the Holy Quran it states:

‘Do you, of all peoples, approach males,and leave your wives whom your Lord has created for you? Nay, you are a people who transgress. They said, ‘If thou desist not, O Lot, thou wilt surely be one of the banished ones.’He said, ‘Certainly I hate your practice.‘My Lord, save me and my family from what they do.’So We saved him and his family, all of them, Save an old woman among those who stayed behind.Then We destroyed the others.’ [2]

However, it is becoming a modern trend in the name of human rights and rights of self-expression to express ones alternative life style (i.e. sexual orientation) in public and feel proud about it. To the extent that pride parades are organized explicitly for this very purpose.

Until two decades ago, sexual orientation used to be called sexual preference. Obviously, the two terms denote significant differences in the manner by which sexuality develops. A preference is something that is chosen, whereas orientation is merely something that defines us. The differences are potentially important regarding how the law applies to those who are homosexual. If homosexuality is not chosen, but actually is a biologically-determined characteristic over which we have no choice, then laws should not treat homosexuals and heterosexuals differently, since homosexuality would be equivalent to one’s race, over which we have no control.

It was Sigmund Freud [3] who first postulated that parental relationships with a child ultimately determine the youngster’s sexual orientation.  But this “nurturing” aspect has effectively given way to the “nature” side of the equation.  Can some behaviors (e.g., alcoholism, homosexuality, and schizophrenia and drug addiction) be explained by genetics?  Are these and other behaviors influenced by nature or by nurture?  Are they inborn or learned? Are people born homosexual or straight? Modern society has two responses to these questions.

The traditional and the right wing religious view is that homosexuality is a malformation, it is a disorder, and the behavior is pathological. Regardless of where one stands on the pleasure-relational aspects of man and woman’s sexuality is inextricably associated with reproduction, and two members of the same sex cannot reproduce. Therefore, homosexuality is a condition that is contrary to nature, in a fundamental way. Biologically, it is simply not natural or normal.

Conflicting with the above viewpoint, much of the current media sources assume the question is a solved scientific problem with all the evidence pointing toward a biological (probably genetic) basis for a homosexual orientation.  The homosexual community with tremendous support from the media has been very successful in gaining acceptance for the second view.

The advocates of acceptance of homosexuality have put forth a great effort to convince the world that homosexuality is both natural and normal. It is simply different, and that only because it is the orientation of a minority, do we classify it as a disorder or perversion. They have been quite successful in this effort. This view, however, rests on a number of questionable premises, which if false, lead us back to the traditional view.

The question has been extremely poorly studied, to say the least, since many of the initial studies, which were highly trumpeted by the media as “proof” for a biological basis for homosexuality, have been contradicted by later, more thorough and controlled studies.

Science has looked at the causes of homosexuality, and more generically the causes of human sexual orientation, with the general conclusions being related to a complex interplay between biologicalandenvironmental factors. The biological factors that have been researched are genetic and hormonal, particularly during thefetaldevelopmental period that influences the resulting brain structure. There are a wide range of environmental factors (sociological, psychological), that may influence sexual orientation.

As the attraction process sexual or otherwise starts in the brain, the very first aspect that I would like to review and sum up is the brain structure and if there is any scientific evidence that the brain structure of homosexuals and heterosexuals is different.

Brain Structure Differences: There had been numerous studies comparing the male & female brains and some have tried to extend these studies to find the differences in the homosexual and heterosexual brains. Some of these later studies showed that male and female brains showed sexual dimorphism[1] in the pre-optic area of the hypothalamus[2], whereas males demonstrated a greater than two-fold difference in cell numbers and size compared to females [4]. A second study found that two of four Interstitial Nuclei of the Anterior Hypothalamus (INAH) were at least twice as large in males as females [5].

Based on similar studies it was hypothesized by Simon LeVay that there might be differences in this region in heterosexual vs. homosexual men. Post-mortem examination of the brains of AIDS patients vs. control male subjects (presumed to be heterosexual) showed that the presumably heterosexual men exhibited INAH3 that were twice the size of both females and presumably homosexual men who had died of AIDS [6].

These studies became very popular in the media since they supported a natural cause for the sexual orientation. There was a popularized Newsweek cover story, “Is This Child Gay?” [7], which characterized LeVay as a “champion for the genetic side of sexual orientation” even though the study involved no genetic data at all. Please note that all these studies by Swaab, Allen and LeVay were published in late 80’s or early 90’s. A study by Byne, et al. examined the question of INAH3 size on the basis of sex, sexual orientation, and the HIV status of the Human subjects [8] in 2001 about a decade after the Swaab, Allen and LeVay studies.

This study found large differences in INAH3 volume on the basis of sex (with the male INAH3 being larger than the female INAH3) just as the earlier studies. However, the volume of INAH3 was decreased in male heterosexual men who had contracted AIDS (0.108 mm compared with 0.123 mm in male controls). There was no statistically significant difference between INAH3 sizes of male heterosexual vs. .male homosexuals who had contracted AIDS (0.108 mm and 0.096 mm, respectively). The study also found that there were no differences in the number of neurons[3] in the INAH3 based upon sexual orientation, although researchers found significant differences between males and females, as in other studies [8].

LeVay’s study [6] was scientifically flawed due to the complication and effects caused by the presence of AIDS, as it did not take into account the aliasing[4] factors and the influence of AIDS on the INAH3. In summary all the studies hypothesizing earlier a difference in the brain structure of heterosexuals compared to homosexuals were either proven to be incomplete, wrong or having excluded other influencing factors that were affecting the brain structure rather than the sexual orientation. Hence to date no scientific evidence exists that supports the hypothesis that sexual orientation is caused by the difference in the brain structure and hence it is natural.

Hormonal Imbalance: Based on the fact that the sex of a child is defined within the womb, as a result of hormonal[5] influences, some people hypothesised that homosexuality may result from a differential hormone balance in the wombs of those who eventually exhibit a homosexual orientation.  It has been shown that ratios of digit length are predictors of several hormones, including testosterone[6], luteinizing hormone[7] and estrogen[8] [9]. In women, the second digit (2D) is almost the same length as the fourth digit (4D). However, in men, it is usually shorter than the fourth. It has been shown that this greater 2D:4D ratio in females is established in two-year-olds.

A study by Williams, et al. showed that the 2D:4D ratio of homosexual men was not significantly different from that of heterosexual men. However, homosexual women displayed significantly smaller 2D:4D ratios compared with heterosexual women [10]. McConaghy et al found that the more older brothers a boy has, the more likely he is to develop a homosexual orientation [11]. Males who had two or more older brothers were found to have lower 2D:4D ratios [10] suggesting that they had experienced increased androgens[9] in the womb. Why increased androgens would predispose both males and females to be homosexual was not explained in the study

Studies involving a rare hormonal imbalance, congenital adrenal hyperplasia[10] (CAH), caused by defective 21-hydroxylase enzyme, suggest that hormonal abnormalities can influence sexual orientation. CAH results in increased production of males hormones during development. In case of male fetuses, increased androgens have little effect. However, female fetuses that develop in this environment develop ambiguous external genitalia, which complicate subsequent development. In utero[11] treatment with dexamethasone reduces the androgen imbalance, resulting in an individual who is genetically and phenotypically[12] female [12] and it also reduces the homosexual orientation in such treated females. This does indicate that the homosexual orientation, if caused in the womb by hormonal imbalance is a treatable hormonal disorder.

These studies examining effects of very high doses of femalehormones to pregnant mothers show no effect on males and a dubious effect on women. About 90% of Western “intersex” children (those born with ambiguous genitalia) choose to remain in their gender of upbringing when puberty reveals their true genetic gender and surgical interventions are offered. Often, this choice is made in the face of very contrary physical and hormonal characteristics. It demonstrates predominant environmental influences on the formation of gender orientation and behaviour.

A 2006 Swedish study [13] of lesbians was reported in the world press as showing a physical basis for lesbian behavior when exposed to female hormones. Dr. Savic of the Stockholm Brain Institute, one of the coauthors of the study, stated; “This is incorrect and is not stated in the paper.” This study simply demonstrated that lesbian women reacted differently than heterosexual women in response to hormonal treatment. This may mean that the reaction is a result of the homosexual behavior rather than the origin of the behavior.

The Gay Gene: Is it Genetic? A group led by Dean H. Hamer of the National Cancer Institute tried to link male homosexuality to a gene on the X chromosome[13].  His team investigated 114 families of homosexual men.  Hamer and his colleagues [14] collected family history information from 76 gay male individuals and 40 gay brother pairs as they searched for incidences of homosexuality among relatives of gay men. , they concluded that a gene for homosexuality might be found on the X chromosome, which is passed from the mother alone.  They then used DNA linkage analysis in an effort to find a correlation between inheritance and homosexual orientation.

Since many of the families with predominance of homosexual relatives had a common set of DNA markers on the X chromosome, Hamer and his coworkers assumed a genetic etiology[14].  Of the 40 pairs of homosexual brothers they analyzed, Hamer’s group [14] found that 33 exhibited a matching DNA region called q28 – a gene located at the tip of the long arm of the X chromosome. In summarizing their findings, Hamer and colleagues [14] noted: “Our experiments suggest that a locus (or loci)[15] related to sexual orientation lies within approximately 4 million base pairs of DNA on the tip of the long arm of the X chromosome”  This discovery also prompted Hamer and his colleagues to speculate: “The linkage to markers on Xq28, the subtelomeric[16] region of the long arm of the sex chromosome, had a multipoint lod score[17] of 4.0, indicating a statistical confidence level of more than 99 percent that at least one subtype of male sexual orientation is genetically influenced.”

One of the most significant problems with Hamer and his coworkers’ [14] study was that they did not check if any of the heterosexual relatives of the homosexuals also had the Xq28 as well as they did not have any explanation about the other 7 subjects included in the study who were homosexual but did not have the “gay gene”. About seven years later George Rice and his colleagues [15] looked intently at the gene Xq28 and included 182 families in their study.  They noted: “It is unclear why our results are so discrepant from Hamer’s original study.  Because our study was larger than that of Hamer et al., we certainly had adequate power to detect a genetic effect as large as was reported in that study.  Nonetheless, our data do not support the presence of a gene of large effect influencing sexual orientation at position Xq28.”

In 1990 with funding from the national institute of health, the genome[18] project was initiated. The national human genome institute has the following on its website regarding this project [16].

“The Human Genome Project (HGP) was one of the great feats of exploration in history — an inward voyage of discovery rather than an outward exploration of the planet or the cosmos; an international research effort to sequence and map all of the genes – together known as the genome – of members of our species, Homo sapiens. Completed in April 2003, the HGP gave us the ability, for the first time, to read nature’s complete genetic blueprint for building a human being”

Most of the major science journals reported on the progress in the field of genetics, but also speculated on how the information would now be used. The one piece of information that never materialized from the Human Genome Project was the identification of the so-called “gay gene”.

Psychological Disorder: The removal of homosexuality as a designation from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Psychiatric Disorders by the American Psychiatric Association has kept many physicians from attempting to provide reparative therapy to homosexuals. However, Columbia University Professor of Psychiatry Dr. Robert Spitzer, who was instrumental in removing homosexuality in 1973 from the list of mental disorders, published a study in 2003 and contended that people can change their “sexual orientation” from homosexual to heterosexual [17]. Spitzer interviewed more than 200 people, most of whom claimed that through reparative therapy counseling, their desires for same-sex partners either diminished significantly or they changed over to heterosexual orientation. Although still a proponent of homosexual activism, Spitzer has been attacked unmercifully by former admirers for this breach of the ideology that people are “born gay and can’t change.”

Another study of 13,000 New Zealand adults (age 16+) examined sexual orientation as a function of childhood history [18]. The study found a 3-fold higher prevalence of childhood abuse for those who subsequently engaged in same sex sexual activity. However, childhood abuse was not a major factor in homosexuality, since only 15% of homosexuals had experienced abuse as children (compared with 5% among heterosexuals) [18]. So, it would appear from this population that only a small percentage of homosexuality (~10%) might be explained by early childhood abusive experiences.

The National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) released the results of a two-year study in 2000. This research effort concluded that before treatment, 68 percent of the respondents perceived themselves as exclusively or almost entirely homosexual, with another 22 percent stating that they were more homosexual than heterosexual.  After treatment, only 13 percent perceived themselves as exclusively or almost entirely homosexual, while 33 percent described themselves as either exclusively or almost entirely heterosexual [19]. Although 83 percent of respondents indicated that they entered therapy primarily because of homosexuality, 99 percent of those who participated in the survey said they now believe that psychological treatments to change homosexuality can be effective and valuable [19].

So what really is the origin of Homosexuality? There are psychological influences that affect different people differently and a lot of fundamental research is being conducted on positive as well as negative aspects of psychological influences [20-22]. Let’s explore the answer to above question in the words of professed homosexuals. Two large studies asked homosexual respondents to explain the origins of their desires and behaviors – how they “got that way.” Kinsey’s study of the late 1940s involved 1700 homosexuals [23-24], and Gebhard’s study [25] in 1970s, involved 979 homosexuals. Both were conducted prior to the period when the “gay rights” movement started to politicize the issue of homosexual origins. Both reported essentially the same findings: Homosexuals overwhelmingly believed their feelings and behavior were the result of social or environmental influences.

There is also evidence that homosexuality, like drug use is “handed down” from older individuals. The first homosexual encounter is usually initiated by an older person. In separate studies 60%, [26] 64%, [25] and 61% [27] of the respondents claimed that their first partner was someone older who initiated the sexual experience.Extremely shy and artistic young boys, for instance, who are not affirmed in their masculinity by a caring father, might be at risk for homosexuality. It’s not because of a homosexual “gene,” but because of an interrupted process of achieving secure gender identity. This can make some boys who crave male affirmation an easy mark for seduction into homosexuality. A similar pattern can be seen in girls who don’t fit classic gender profiles, need feminine affirmation, and are targeted by lesbians who play upon the girls’ emotional needs.

What kinds of influences do cause strong homosexual desires? No one answer is acceptable to all researchers in the field. Important factors, however, seem to fall into four categories. As with so many other odd sexual tendencies, males appear especially susceptible:

  1. Homosexual experience: any homosexual experience in childhood, especially if it is a first sexual experience or with an adult, any homosexual contact with an adult, particularly with a relative or authority figure.
  2. Family abnormality: a dominant, possessive, or rejecting mother, an absent, distant, or rejecting father, a parent with homosexual proclivities, the lack of a religious home environment, divorce, condoning homosexuality as a legitimate lifestyle – welcoming homosexuals (e.g., co-workers, friends) into the family circle.
  3. Unusual sexual experience, particularly in early childhood: precocious or excessive masturbation, exposure to pornography in childhood.
  4. Cultural influences: a visible and socially approved homosexual sub-culture that invites curiosity and encourages exploration, pro-homosexual sex education, openly homosexual authority figures, such as teachers, societal and legal toleration of homosexual acts, depictions of homosexuality as normal and/or desirable behavior.

Medical Consequence: There are numerous studies on the physical and medical consequences of homosexual behaviour, however, I would summarise these in the following. Death and disease accompany promiscuous and unsanitary sexual activity. 70% [28] to 78% [29] of gays reported having had a sexually transmitted disease. The proportion with intestinal parasites, worms, flukes, and amoeba ranged from 25% [30] to 39% [31] to 59% [32-33] respectively. Almost all HIV cases among young males in U.S. attributable to homosexual behavior according to the Centers For Disease Control’s  latest survey that found that “In 2009, 91% of adolescent males and 89% of young adult males had diagnosed infections that were attributed to male-to-male sexual contact.” [34]. In addition to AIDS, there is a long list of maladies attendant upon the homosexually active population. Of particular concern is anal cancer. According to J. R. Daling et.al [35], the risk of anal cancer soars by 4000 percent among those who engage in anal intercourse.

Self-Control and Reformation Required to Ensure Survival of Species: The problem of human species is an eternal and at the same times the most urgent of all problems. It lies at the heart of the philosophical questions of man’s place and destination in a world that is being discovered and transformed in the name of humanity, the highest of all values. The main goal of social development is the formation of human abilities and the creation of the most favourable conditions for human self-expression and spiritual elevation.

There are a number of human characteristics that we have no control over, for example, who someone’s parents are going to be, what will be child’s sex at birth, color of eyes, hair and there are many other similar attributes that can be cited including people being born disabled. Advancements in genetic engineering have aims to develop processes to even control that, some of which can be beneficial to human race for example correction of disabilities by genetic modifications. However, there are a number of things people develop through influence of their surrounding environment, for example communications (what language they will speak depends on which family they are born in) they develop this skill way before they even become aware of the functions of their sexual organs.

All human behavioral drives are instinctive. Individual human behavior is in response to these basic instincts as modified by the human intellect. The intellectual (moral, ethical) human controls its behavior by augmenting those social drives which correspond with its moral, cultural and spiritual beliefs and diminishing those drives which are contrary. The drive for sex is one of the strongest of the human instincts, often over-riding even the instinct for survival of the self since the survival of the species is the paramount consideration.

A human child is born at the most primitive of the animal states, but with tremendous ability to understand and learn from the environment surrounding him/her. A detailed discussion on “The Physical, Moral and Spiritual States of Man” is eloquently examined in the booklet “Philosophy of the teachings of Islam” [36] by Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (as), the Promised Messiah for the current age. Discussing this very primitive state of human being, Hadhrat Ahmad (as) elaborates:

“The first spring which is the source of all natural states is designated by the Holy Quran as “the Nafsi Ammarah”, which means the self that incites to evil”. He (as) further explains this state saying, “thus the propensity towards evil and intemperance is a human state which predominates over the mind of a person before he enters upon the moral state. This is man’s natural state, so long as he is not guided by reason and understanding but follows his natural bent (instincts) in eating, drinking, sleeping, waking, anger and provocation, like the animals”.

An intellectual being is one that uses intellectual control (self-discipline) to augment desirable instinctive behavior and to minimize inappropriate instinctive behavior. Through reason, the moral (intellectual, ethical) human searches out and exhibit a behavior which optimizes species survival on earth for eternity.

There are three elements in sexual reproduction which are required in the human species for species’ survival. These must be held sacred by the individuals in the species and are: the joining of adult male and female in a cooperative unit (wedlock), and in earnest commitment, for rearing the young; the mating of the adult male and female for producing children; and the joint care of the child by the parents in full cooperation from conception to self-sufficiency, each parent performing their respective duties. When these three elements are conducted under intellectual control, the one element that distinguishes the humans from other species, they are then moral, ethical and spiritual. Any human behavior which diminishes the positive effect of these functions in any way is, therefore, unethical and immoral.

Modern society is infecting our minds, and everything we do, and forcing us to abide by certain social trends. We are pressurised to accept all variations in the lifestyles as normal and natural. In the name of freedom, the unrestricted mingling of opposite sexes in the modern society has resulted in increased promiscuity. The consequence is that the physical sex that nature developed in all mammals, for reproduction, is losing its charm for the modern human beings. The unrestrained modern human is becoming sexually bizarre in pursuit of pleasure ridden lifestyles. In the animal kingdom sex for any other reason than procreation is unobserved. Sex for that reason among modern humans is becoming rare. Sexual pleasure has been shown to be chemical in nature. Sexual activity increases the chemical flow. Nonconventional sex, as practiced by many of the modern human beings, is addictive, useless, costly, troublesome, wasteful, and disease ridden practice with no redeeming feature.  Rise of homosexuality is thus a direct outcome of human moral degradation in pursuit of pleasures.

The collective sexual instincts of the human are in great disarray and quite contrary to the survival of the species. It is, therefore, necessary for each human to exercise a strong intellectual control over its sexual instincts. To do so is moral and spiritual, not to do so is immoral and unethical. To judge the morality of a particular act is to assess that act with respect to the optimum survivability of the species and individuals. If it harms, or is likely to harm, others or self, then it is immoral, suicide and assisted suicide is still illegal in almost all the human societies and civilizations of the world. The degree of immorality is directly proportional to the severity of the harm and/or its likelihood.

What are the repercussions of promiscuity are also very visible through the modern media. Divorces rates are sky-rocketing courts are filled with cases arguing over child responsibility. Most child abuse cases involve step-parents or live-in lovers. Child murder and abandonment are no longer rare occurrences in modern societies. Most family murders are the result of sexual promiscuity. Homosexuality is an act that endangers the survival of the human race itself, besides harming the individuals involved with a variety of diseases and eventual death without offspring.

When a person is guided by reason and understanding and brings his natural state under control and regulates it in a proper manner, then the three states, as described, cease to remain the categories as natural states, but are called moral states [36]. The sole purpose for the creation of mankind and bestowing the intelligence on it, as per the Islamic teachings, is to use that talent to find its Creator through His attributes and by truly knowing those attributes man will be compelled to worship Him as it is stated in the Holy Quran: “And I have not created the Jinn and the men but that they may worship Me [37].” Hence by doing so, it rises above the animal self and can reach a stage when the soul of a person being delivered from all weaknesses is filled with spiritual powers and establishes a living relationship with God Almighty without Whose support it cannot exist [36].

The Holy Quran beautifully elaborate the purpose of creating mates in the following verse, “O ye people! fear your Lord, Who created you from a single soul and created therefrom its mate, and from them twain spread many men and women; and fear Allah, in Whose name you appeal to one another, and fear Him particularly respecting ties of relationship. Verily, Allah watches over you [38].” Thus the private sexual acts committed between a wedded couple for the purpose of procreation and for strengthening the family bond are moral and spiritual. They ensure the survival of the species beyond the lives of the individuals involved and a source of peace for the couple and are exactly for the purpose they are created as mates for each other.

Contrary to this when a human being is enslaved to primitive pleasure bound instincts; it continues to degrade itself, however with no satisfaction to the extent that he/she degrades even below the animal self that it was born at. Homosexuality, incest and other similar non-conventional sexual acts are the direct consequence of such degradation. No society or civilization survives if the individuals within that group do not consistently follow its established rules, i.e. exercises intellectual control over its instincts. Since the sexual instinct is by far the strongest social instinct, a benchmark of the success of a given social or civil group and an indicator of the moral and ethical capability of individuals to contribute to the group, is the sexual discipline of the individuals within that group.

Once a trend is set in motion to deteriorate morality and corrupt human beings to fall from their higher spiritual states, men with strong will power, higher morality and spirituality and leadership qualities are needed to bring human beings back to a higher moral and spiritual state. This has exactly been the practice of the Almighty Creator, at every juncture when immorality and corruption was widespread on earth, He chose men, like Abraham, Noah, Lot, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad (may peace be upon all of them) and strengthened them with revelation to bring humanity back to Him. Looking at the moral state of the world we live in, I wonder, is it not the time for another reformer? Has the Almighty abandoned the human race? No it cannot be so. The light of revelation did shine on Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (as) of Qadian. The least, all the pious souls of the earth, owe to their Creator is to thoroughly examine the claims of this caller towards the Creator who rose in our times.

Conclusions: Despite the recent trends and media frenzy to portray the alternative lifestyles as natural, genetically, hormonally or biologically stimulated, there is no scientific evidence to that effect. In fact all the scientific evidence negates these notions. Despite the success of homosexual lobby in removing homosexuality as a designation from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Psychiatric Disorders there is ample recorded medical evidence that this conditions is psychologically treatable and medically amendable.

The world has been hampered for too long with the idea that people are “born gay.” The people who most need to hear the truth are those who mistakenly believe that they have no chance for change. It is both more compassionate and truthful to give them hope than to serve them up politically motivated, unproven creations like the “gay gene.”

Homosexual lifestyles are immoral from human standards as they directly threaten the survival of human species on earth, besides harming the individuals involved, with deadly diseases, shortening their lifetime and leaving them without offspring. To ensure survival of human species for all the times to come human race needs to exercise self-control that can only come at the current age through individual and societal reformation. As human race we must raise the bar on morality and spirituality within ourselves and expect more from our leaders.

References:

  1. Holy Quran, Chapter 7: Verses 81-82.
  2. Holy Quran, Chapter 26: Verses 166-173.
  3. Freud, Sigmund (1956). On Sexuality. Penguin Books Ltd.
  4. D.F. Swaab, and E. Fliers. A sexually dimorphic nucleus in the human brain, Science 228: (1985) 1112.
  5. L.S. Allen, M. Hines, J.E. Shryne and R.A. Gorski, Two sexually dimorphic cell groups in the human brain, J. Neurosci.9 (1989) 497.
  6. S. LeVay, A difference in hypothalamic structure between heterosexual and homosexual men, Science 253 (1991) 1034.
  7. D. Gelman, Is This Child Gay? Born or Bred: The Origins of Homosexuality. Newsweek September 9, 1991, p. 52.
  8. W. Byne, S. Tobet, L. A. Mattiace, M. S. Lasco, E. Kemether, M. A. Edgar, S. Morgello, M. S. Buchsbaum, and L. B. Jones, The interstitial nuclei of the human anterior hypothalamus: an investigation of variation with sex, sexual orientation, and HIV status. Horm. Behav. 40 (2001) 86.
  9. J.T. Manning, D. Scutt, J. Wilson and D. I. Lewis-Jones., The ratio of 2nd to 4th digit length: a predictor of sperm numbers and concentrations of testosterone, luteinizing hormone and oestrogen.Human Reproduction13 (1998) 3000.
  10. T. J .Williams, M. E. Pepitone, S. E. Christensen, B. M. Cooke, A. D. Huberman, N. J. Breedlove, T. J. Breedlove, C. L. Jordan, and S. M. Breedlove. Finger-length ratios and sexual orientation. Nature 404 (2000) 455.
  11. N. McConaghy, D. Hadzi-Pavlovic, C. Stevens, V. Manicavasagar, N. Buhrich, and U. Vollmer-Conna. Fraternal birth order and ratio of heterosexual/homosexual feelings in women and men. J. Homosex. 51 (2006) 161.
  12. L. Frisén, A. Nordenström, H. Falhammar, H. Filipsson, G. Holmdahl, P.O. Janson, M. Thorén, K. Hagenfeldt, A. Möller, A. Nordenskjöld., Gender role behavior, sexuality, and psychosocial adaptation in women with congenital adrenal hyperplasia due to CYP21A2 deficiency. J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 94 (2009) 3432.
  13. C. Ciumas, A. Linde´n Hirschberg and I. Savic, Cerebral Cortex 19: (2009) 1167.
  14. D. H. Hamer, S. Hu, V. L. Magnuson, N. Hu, and A. M. Pattatucci. A linkage between DNA markers on the X chromosome and male sexual orientation. Science 261 (1993).321.
  15. George Rice, Carol Anderson, Neil Risch, and George Ebers, “Male Homosexuality: Absence of Linkage to Microsatellite Markers at Xq28,” Science, 284 (1999) 665.
  16. http://www.genome.gov/10001772 (October 5, 2013).
  17. Robert L. Spitzer, “Can Some Gay Men and Lesbians Change Their Sexual Orientation?”, Archives of Sexual Behavior, Vol. 32, No. 5, October 2003: 403-417
  18. J. Elisabeth Wells, Magnus A. McGee and Annette L. Beautrais, “Multiple Aspects of Sexual Orientation: Prevalence and Sociodemographic Correlates in a New Zealand National Survey”, Archives of Sexual Behaviour, Vol. 40 No. 1 (2011) 155.
  19. Joseph Nicolosi, A. Dean Byrd, and Richard Potts, “Retrospective Self-reports of Changes in Homosexual Orientation: A Consumer Survey of Conversion Therapy Clients,” Psychological Reports, 86 (2000) 1071.
  20. A. Raj, J.G. Silverman and H. Amaro, The relationship between sexual abuse and sexual risk among high school students: findings from the 1997 Massachusetts Youth Risk Behavior Survey, Maternal and Child Health Journal, 4(2) (2000) 125-134.
  21. J.M. Chandy, R.W. Blum and M.D. Resnick, Sexually abused male adolescents: how vulnerable are they? Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, , 6(2) (1997) 1. D.W. Holder et al. The association between adolescent sexual spirituality and voluntary sexual activity. J Adolesc Health;26 (2000) 295.
  22. National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy. Faithful Nation: What American Adults and Teens Think about Faith, Morals, Religion, and Teen Pregnancy: A National Survey Washington, DC: The Campaign, 2001.
  23. Alfred C. Kinsey, Wardell B. Pomeroy, and Clyde E. Martin. Sexual Behavior in the Human Male. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Co., 1948.
  24. Alfred C. Kinsey, Wardell B. Pomeroy, and Clyde E. Martin. Sexual Behavior in the Human Female. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Co., 1953.
  25. Paul Gebhard, and Alan Blaine Johnson. The Kinsey Data: Marginal Tabulations of the 1938-1963 Interviews Conducted by the Institute for Sex Research Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Co., 1979.
  26. A. P. Bell, and M. S. Weinberg, Homosexualities: A study of diversity among men and women. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1978.
  27. Irving Bieber, Harvey J. Dain, Paul R. Dince, Marvin G. Drellich, Henry G. Grand, Ralph R. Gundlach, Malvina W. Kremer, Alfred H. Rifkin, Cornelia B. Wilbur, and Toby B. Bieber Homosexuality: A Psychoanalytic Study of Male Homosexuals. New York: Basic Books, Inc. 1962.
  28. M.T. Schechter, E. Jeffries, P. Constance, B. Douglas, S. Fay, M. Maynard, R. Nitz, B. Willoughby, W.J. Boyko, A. MacLeod, Letter to the Editor: “Changes in sexual behavior and fear of AIDS.” Lancet no. 8389, vol 1 (June 9, 1984): 1293.
  29. Karla Jay and Allen Young, The Gay Report: Lesbians and Gay Men Speak Out About Sexual Experiences and Lifestyles (New York: Summit, 1977).
  30. Harold W. Jaffe, Choi Keewhan, Pauline A. Thomas, Harry W. Haverkos, David M. Auerbach, “National case-control study of Kaposi’s sarcoma and Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia in homosexual men: Part 1, Epidemiologic results.” Annals Of Internal Medicine 99, no. 2 (August 1983): 145.
  31. Thomas C. Quinn, Walter E. Stamm, Steven E. Goodell, Emanuel Mkrtichian, Jacqueline Benedetti, Lawrence Corey, Michael D. Schuffler, King K. Holmes, “The polymicrobial origin of intestinal infection in homosexual men.” New England Journal of Medicine 309, no. 10 (September 8, 1983): 576.
  32. Robert J. Biggar, Mads Melbye, Peter Ebbesen, Dean L. Mann, James J. Goedert, Robert Weinstock, Douglas M. Strong, William A. Blattner, “Low T-lymphocyte ratios in homosexual men: Epidemioligic evidence for a transmissible agent.” Journal of The American Medical Association 251, no. 11 (March 15, 1984): 1441.
  33. John E. Rigdon, “Overcoming a deep-rooted reluctance, more firms advertise to gay community.” The Wall Street Journal (July 18, 1991): B-1.
  34. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Diagnoses of HIV infection and AIDS among adolescents and young adults in the United States and 5 U.S. dependent areas, 2006–2009. HIV Surveillance Supplemental Report 2012; 17(No. 2). Published January 2012.  http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/resources/reports/.
  35. Janet R. Daling, Noel S. Weiss, Larry L. Klopfenstein; Leah E. Cochran; Wong Ho Chow, Richard Daifuku, “Correlates of Homosexual Behavior and the Incidence of Anal Cancer,” Journal of the American Medical Association 247, no.14, 9 April 1982, pp. 1988.
  36. Hadrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmadas of Qadian “The Philosophy of the Teachings of Islam” English Translation by Sir Muhammad Zafrulla Khan,Islam International Publications Ltd., UK (2010), ISBN 978-1-84880-055-7 http://www.alislam.org/library/books/Philosophy-of-Teachings-of-Islam.pdf
  37. Holy Quran, Chapter 51: Verse 57.

Disclaimers:

1. The Muslim Times has an Editorial policy, but, the views expressed by different writers, editors and commentors belong to them only or the authors they are quoting and the Muslim Times takes no responsibility for the views expressed.

2. The Muslim Times is not the official website of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community. The official site is: Alislam.org

3. Internet communications are not always secured and therefore the Muslim Times does not accept legal responsibility for any contents. The reader is responsible for verifying its authenticity before acting on the contents.

4. We, in the Muslim Times, do not necessarily fully endorse all the articles that we are presenting here. Sometimes, we just like to inform the readers of the different opinions ‘out there.’

5.  Some content-posts are archived for backup and to keep archived records of any news about Islam, Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, Universal Brotherhood, human rights and Separation of Mosque-Church and State.

25 replies

  1. As Chief Editor of the Muslim Times, let me say, this post is to have a polite and honest nature versus nurture debate, about homosexuality, without any hate-mongering, from either side. We will approve evidence based comments and hollow rhetoric and abusive language will be deleted.

    Islam and other religions do not approve of any extra-marital sex. So, in many ways homosexuals are not any greater affront to religious teachings, than many a heterosexuals.

    You may hate any sin, but, you have no religious authority to hate any sinner. After all our motto is love for all hatred for none.

  2. You seem to ignore the fact that human beings have done, and will forever do, whatever they want, and justify it, by the higher powers of will, despite what some ancient, religious, bigoted and presumptive pseudo-authority demands of them. And this is why all religion will eventualy become insignificant, while now only detrimental, to
    the social evolution of humanity.

  3. An excellent review of scientific evidence.
    Homosexuality is a moral disease. As for physical illnesses medical help is required similarly for moral illnesses, spiritual help is needed. As some physical illnesses are harder to cure, similarly some moral illnesses are harder to cure. As some physical illnesses can lead to death, some spiritual illness can also cause your conscious to die.
    Even if some individuals are inclined towards homosexuality, they need to control their desires. Just because someone has a desire, it cannot be accepted as normal or the order of this world will be destroyed.
    Homosexuality will eventually kill the dying family structure in the West. Since it can take a generation or two, it will not become obvious just yet. Whenever laws of nature are broken, disaster follows.

  4. Henry Butterfield:
    You are absolutely right in saying that “human beings have done, and will forever do, whatever they want, and justify it, by the higher powers of will”

    However, religious or not, to maintain the peace in the society some restrictions/controls have to be exercised/practised. I am sure you will agree with me that Murder should be prohibited. For our own safety and safety of others in our society we have to follow the laws (natural or developed by societies). So what I said in my article goes beyond the religions but looks at the survival of the species itself as the basis of morality rather than any specific religious teachings.

  5. None of the scientific studies quoted is definitive proof that homosexuality is not, in the main, natural but is by choice. I concede that there are some people who may prefer a particular life style for reasons best known to them. Bisexuals have the choice to make in what they prefer. But homosexuals born that way can do nothing about it. Proof of this is from the article itself.
    “MCCONAGHY ET AL FOUND THAT THE MORE OLDER BROTHERS A BOY HAS, THE MORE LIKELY HE IS TO DEVELOP A HOMOSEXUAL ORIENTATION(11). MALES WHO HAD TWO OR MORE OLDER BROTHERS WERE FOUND TO HAVE LOWER 2D:4D RATIO(10) SUGGESTING THAT THEY HAD EXPERIENCED INCREASED ANDROGENES(9) IN THE WOMB. WHY INCREASED ANDROGENES WOULD PREDISPOSE BOTH MALES AND FEMALES TO BE HOMOSEXUALS WAS NOT EXPLAINED IN THE STUDY”.
    How would something that happened in the womb not be natural? What choice did the fetus have to make in determining the outcome from the androgene imbalance?
    “STUDIES INVOLVING A RARE HORMONAL IMBALANCE, CONGENITAL ADRENAL HYPERPLASIA(10)(CAH), CAUSED BY DEFECTIVE 21-HYDROXYLASE ENZYME, SUGGEST THAT HORMONAL ABNORMALITIES CAN INFLUENCE SEXUAL ORIENTATION–THIS DOES INDICATE THAT THE HOMOSEXUAL ORIENTATION, IF CAUSED IN THE WOMB BY HORMONAL IMBALANCE IS A TREATABLE HORMONAL DISORDER”.
    The questions arise, what if the parents of the unborn child do not know of the imbalance until after the child is born? And if they know but can not afford the cost of the treatment, how is the condition a choice made by the individual?
    “THERE ARE A NUMBER OF HUMAN CHARACTERISTICS THAT WE HAVE NO CONTROL OVER–“. That is correct. As Dr Phil said, homosexuality begins at conception when the brain and the body develop in different directions. Neither the parents nor the child did anything to bring it about. It is purely determined by nature.
    Homosexuals are no more spiteful than heterosexuals. The same God created both of them. There are many gays who would opt for straight life because of the stigma associated with their situation. Therapy and counseling have worked in only very limited cases. That is why homosexuals should be pitied instead of being scorned.
    I have nothing against somebody’s orientation. My only grouse with homosexuals is the advertisement they make of it. Sex life is very personal and should not be the subject of parades.

  6. Makes no difference whether homosexuals are born or raised – if two consenting adults want to have a relationship, it doesn’t affect anyone else, and is no one else’s business.

  7. If two men are allowed to have sex together and there is no law prohibiting such bad practice then there is no need to have any law about drinking and drugs too. Why to have any law?/ let people do what they like with themselves. As far drinking, drugs and gambling is concerned, there should be no law prohibiting such practices because man is free to elect anything and free to enjoy his life the way he likes.
    The important thing is that there are limits for everything, even there is speed limit. The society should not permit any person from crossing those limits in the name of freedom and liberty. Gays cannot have their way just because they like it. And these matters cannot be left to the vote too. Even if more people are in favor of homosexuality, it should not be permitted.
    That is the policy followed in the Quran. Quran has set limits on some (few) acts which cannot be crossed. And it has left alone many other things in which mankind can use their choice.
    The matter is proved by another way too. The Quran has taught the Muslims to be on the middle course, not inclined to one side fully and neglecting the other side. Muslims are a middle course nation (Ummat e Wast). That is in their prayers, some prayers are collective, others are individual showing a balance between communal as well as individual liberty.
    The mater of destiny is also advised between the FATE and WILL of the person. There are many more examples such as Communism and Capitalism, earning lawfully and spending lawfully, atheism ( no God) and polytheism (many Gods) ,,,,,,
    In order to protect the society and life on earth, it is necessary to have limits on liberty.
    Even Socrates had told that democracy is destroyed due to too much love of liberty.(The Republic)

  8. What about Catholic views on homosexuality? Aspects of Christianity have succumbed to accepting it whereas other aspects of it have not like Islam. Islam CAN adapt to Britain. It constitutes around 20% of the worlds population spread across many different cultures but it knows where to draw the line. As opposed to secular liberalism which does not know where to draw the line. Legalising homosexuality? what next ? legalising paedophilia maybe?

    British public are very poorly educated regarding what Muslims believe in and why they live the life that they do. There are numerous benefits being a Muslim brings to one self. These benefits are not for this world but the world after you die.Too much of the discussions are about things like the burka and sharia law. What about all the good things that we believe in no alcohol, fasting for 1 month, no adultery , compulsory charity to the poor etc..I am not sure this is the right question. Who is a Muslim? What is a Muslim? Are Muslims that different from Christians or Jews? I think these are much better questions. I am not sure people understand what Islam is. It is hugely diverse and widely dispersed faith. There are so many ideologies and differences within that faith. So the question is how should we help people understand that. I do not think we should brand all Muslims after one extreme element. In my opinion those people are extreme mainly due to their societies rather than their faith just like many many extremist groups in the world. Islam has existed in many countries and cultures for thousands of years so why it is a problem now? Muslims adapt to Islam wherever they are, Britain doesn’t come into it except that Muslims practice their faith within the law of the country they live in. No country can force a Muslim to think in a particular way. I believe in Allah, the Creator of everything who has no partners. Now can someone tell how they can make me change what I think. Similarly at the workplace, I pray at the correct times as Muslims are commanded to do by Allah, Most Great, Most Wise. How would someone in Britain tell me I can’t pray. If there was a policy in a company where they said to you cannot pray, I would not apply for the position. Simples. If in Britain Muslims could not pray, then Muslims would simply set up their own places of business and do as they please.

    If there is any religion that is flexible and adaptable to the locality where it is being practiced, that would be Islam. Islam has been the main religion to so many cultures and nations across the world. I can see no conflict between the liberal values of Britain and the Islamic principles and values. Islam had brought about liberation to all human kind and in particular to women,
    The woman were allowed to vote in Islam well before this right was given to her in the modern world, the woman was allowed to inherit as oppose to being an asset to be inherited in the family.
    Islam supports and encourages art in all its forms and shapes, the art that refine the soul and better the human life.
    The human being has seen no better liberation than that s/he was granted in Islam.
    Liberation from greed
    Liberation from brutality of the rulers and governors
    Liberation from vices
    Liberation from being ill treated or ill treating others
    Liberation from racism
    Liberation from sexism
    Liberation from ageism
    Liberation from class
    All people are equal before God and the best in humans are those who observe God in their behaviour and everything they do and think.
    Muslims believe in the holy bible, and in the Christian and Jewish creeds.
    The Muslim God and the British God is one so lets them come to a common word.
    IA
    http://www.londonschoolofislamics.org.uk

  9. The prohibitions in the Quran or other religious scriptures are not the real reason to lead a moral life. If we start arguing about such issues based upon our scriptures we will never get anywhere. For example prohibitions in food. Hindus are vegetarians, Jews and Muslims don’t eat pork and the Christians and Buddhist eat anything. So how do you argue this from your scriptures. Also when scriptures come in, minds close and reasoning takes a leave. So let us not argue this on the basis of scriptures.
    Immorality leads to destruction — ultimately. In some cases it is obvious and in others not so much. Telling a lie is not permitted in any religion and among atheists too. It is simply too destructive and everyone realizes it quickly.
    Homosexuality is destructive to society. It may not be apparent immediately, but in time it leads to family breakdown, which is the essential unit of a good and strong society. In the above article it has been explained very clearly and with strong and logical arguments. This is the reason that it has been prohibited by every religion, because every religion tries to strengthen the family.

  10. @ Ghulam Sarwar
    “If two men are allowed to have sex together and there is no law prohibiting such bad practice then there is no need to have any law about drinking and drugs too. Why to have any law?/ let people do what they like with themselves. As far drinking, drugs and gambling is concerned, there should be no law prohibiting such practices because man is free to elect anything and free to enjoy his life the way he likes.”
    ___________________________________

    Oh dear, where to start?

    First of all, there are laws about drinking and drugs in most countries.
    Secondly, what on earth does it have to do with homosexuality anyway? You could equally say: “If a man and woman are allowed to have sex together and there is no law prohibiting such bad practice then there is no need to have any law about drinking and drugs too.” It’s equally meaningless.

    You also said: “Gays cannot have their way just because they like it. And these matters cannot be left to the vote too. Even if more people are in favor of homosexuality, it should not be permitted.”

    “Their own way”? What way is that then, equality? You have offered no logical reason for why homosexuality is in any way bad or immoral. Replace “gays” with “Muslims” in your statement and see how you like it then.

    You’re entitled to believe anything you like about homosexuality, but you have to recognise your views only apply to your own life. No one is forcing you to have a same sex relationship; let others live their lives, hurting non one, as they wish.

  11. Using drugs harms no one except the person itself. Yet there are laws prohibiting use of drugs. Why acts of Gays (life style)cannot be prohibited? Please guide me. AL,I am trying to understand your point of view.
    In the Quran also there is a chapter “Al-kafiroon”= i.e. Infidels and enemies of the truth”.
    In its last two lines, it says:
    “For you (O infidels) is your way of life (Deen) and for me is my way of life.”
    I do not know if this verse can be useful for the Gay people. Some one may please advise on that.
    The best thing to do is “Not to use religion for the state activities”, and keep on preaching for the good deeds.

  12. @ Ghulam Sarwar
    Drugs harm everyone, from the people in the places where they’re produced, to those in the places they end up – drug related violence; organised crime; ill health of the user (and subsequent cost to the tax payer); children of drug users are often abused and neglected… these are just a few of the side effects.

    Even if drugs did harm no one other than the one taking them (and we’ve established that isn’t the case), how does it logically follow that the “acts of gays” should be prohibited also? The answer is, it doesn’t logically follow.

    With great respect, I think my point of view is perfectly clear, but I’ll repeat it here: “You’re entitled to believe anything you like about homosexuality, but you have to recognise your views only apply to your own life. No one is forcing you to have a same sex relationship; let others live their lives, hurting non one, as they wish.”

  13. There is much too much to read about this subject before one can come to a really honest conclusion. In some societies this is considered an aberration, probably in most societies but we don’t hear this because their voices are eclipsed by the stronger voices of the western media which represents perhaps less than a fifth of the world population. Still, in the west you will find shelves of research on the topic. The above thesis requires further research. The should start with the required population of women who follow certain lifestyles and follow them, beyond birth to adulthood. That would require about 21 years of research. Without this it would be difficult to back up this thesis.

    My answer to the question is: “I don’t know. I have friends who are gay and highly respected in academia. Some of the greatest civil servants are gay. They sacrifice their lives for the welfare of society without fear or favour.” Let’s not be too quick to judge what the Qur’an means and what is happening in society in this brief transitional age of the 21st Century.

  14. AL has explained it very well that if something does not harm others then it may be allowed. I do not want to continue any argument. As I said that religion should not interfere in the matters of state and the state should also not hurt the religious people.
    I wonder now about suicide. Does it hurt other people, other than the one who kills himself? And is it permitted to commit suicide? Can we legally take our own life? Can be we see suicide as a parallel with homosexuality?

  15. @Lutf, 26 October:
    For example prohibitions in food. Hindus are vegetarians, Jews and Muslims don’t eat pork and the Christians and Buddhist eat anything. So how do you argue this from your scriptures. Also when scriptures come in, minds close and reasoning takes a leave. So let us not argue this on the basis of scriptures.
    ————————-
    I believe food effects a person, makes him fierce or gentle, as we see that cows and goats eat vegetation (grass) and they are meek. Lions and eagles eat meat. They are ferocious, killers. I wonder if the food has to do something with that?
    Similarly, the eating of pork (Pig food) may make the consumer shameless.
    Torah and Quran has forbidden consumption of pork for a very good reason. There may be medical reasons too.
    Do you really believe that the Quran and Torah are based on meaningless words- You say that when scripture comes in , minds close and reason leaves. ???????

  16. The success of gays in gaining recognition is because of their success in framing the issue as a question of human rights. If we frame any issue in these terms most people will support it whether they like it or not.
    Homosexuality is not a question of human rights. It is a moral illness with real consequences for the society. It results in breakdown of family which is critical for maintaining a strong social order. Just because some gays are successful professionals or intellectuals does not mean anything. Many sexual deviants will fall into this category.
    Gays should not be persecuted or discriminated against, but at the same time they should respect the others too. I do not see a straight pride parade, but for some strange reason gay pride parade has to happen. I want my children spared the onslaught of gay propaganda. I want sexuality to remain a personal matter. It should not be a subject of public debate or display.

  17. @Namelee,
    Thank you for reading the article thoroughly and really digging in to obtain information to make your points. However, I must say that you completely missed the key point in that area. The hormonal imbalance in the womb can also cause other birth defects (i.e. ambiguous genitalia or in other words undefined sexual identity) such children after birth are usually provided hormonal therapy prior to puberty to firm up their sexual identity and at puberty surgical intervention is offered to firm up the identity. So my point is even if homosexuality is produced in the womb because of hormonal imbalance, it still is a malfunction or treatable birth defect, it is not normal and choosing to stay that way is making a choice toward moral degradation.

    As human beings we have learnt to rise above animal selves by controlling our instincts, sexual instinct being the strongest of them.

    @Al
    You say if the relationship is between two consenting adults you have no problem with it. Well no society, even the atheists (Russian and Chinese societies have been predominantly atheists) would allow a sexual relationship between blood relations (i.e. Brother & Sister, mother and son, father and daughter etc.) even if they are consenting, society will consider it immoral and degrading to animal behaviour.

    So my point is that as human beings we ought to practice controls to attain peace within ourselves, with our societies and with environment/nature. Our collective wisdom as learnt through centuries of collective human knowledge demonstrate that homosexual practices are harmful and disease ridden.

    Well they do harm (in fact threaten the whole humanity, let’s for a moment consider that in a given time everyone on this earth becomes homosexual, what would be the future of humanity after that?? I think it is very obvious.

    Finally my whole point of the article is that:

    1. Contrary to popular media and gay lobby beliefs there is no scientific evidence (to date) that homosexuality is natural or normal.
    2. It is something human beings have control over and can change and to do so is morally uplifting and rising. It is spiritual to practice control and abandon such desires.
    3. Stressing that it is natural and not changeable is the real persecution of the gays. It is very cruel to tell them they cannot change and making them lose hope and give up even trying.

  18. Agree with Mr. Rauf’s conclusions 100%.
    @ Ghulam Sarwar: Please do not put words in my mouth. Try to understand the point. If you keep shouting that according to your belief pork is harmful because Quran says so, it has no effect on a Christian who will laugh at you and keep eating it. To convince him you cannot insist that quran says so. It is meaningless to that Christian. But if you can give him proof from science which is common between you and him, he might understand.
    Scriptures are not meaningless. It is people who do not know how to benefit from them who make them meaningless.
    And by the way I was not talking about effects of food. You still owe us something more than just your belief in this area.

  19. Ijaz,
    I disagree with the notion that environmental factors are the major causes of homosexuality. In his article,which I suspect may be your source material, because the facts are uncannily similar, Rich Deem:”GENETICS AND HOMOSEXUALITY: ARE PEOPLE BORN GAY? THE BIOLOGICAL BASIS OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION” concludes “EARLY CHILDHOOD ABUSE HAS BEEN ASSOCIATED WITH HOMOSEXUALITY, BUT, AT MOST, ONLY EXPLAINS ABOUT 10% OF THOSE WHO EXPRESS A HOMOSEXUAL ORIENTATION”.
    That per cent-age is too negligible to lead to any scientific generalization. In the vast majority of cases, being born homosexual is like being born left handed. The individual can do nothing about it.
    Hormonal treatment might be effective if the ability to diagnose and treat early is available. Otherwise, the individual has to live with the condition. Being that it is not self inflicted, gays should not be discriminated against.
    On the Oprah Winfrey Show where Dr Phil made the statement I quoted in my previous post, there were participants who showed that their conditions were natural.
    One of them was a boy of 3 or 4 years of biracial parentage. The father was concerned that his child showed abnormal tendencies. He preferred dolls to footballs and chose to be dressed as a girl instead of a boy. Told that he was a boy, he would cry uncontrollably saying that he wanted to be like the mother giving birth and suckling the babies.
    Another was a boy of about 12 years who was born a girl but at 8 or 9 she told the parents that she felt trapped in the wrong body. She underwent surgery for sex change and was pleased with the outcome.
    Think of a middle aged woman who was a macho-man, got married and had two sons. One day he confessed to the wife that he had been living a lie. With her support, he had a sex change operation to become a woman.
    There is case of a kick-boxing champion of an Asian country who changed his sex.
    None of these can be attributed to environmental factors.
    Although same sex marriage does not make sense to me, fearing that its proliferation will lead to depopulation is not well founded. There will be no such proliferation as the more than 95% of people prefer to be straight. And were it to be possible, even those born gay would choose to get out of it.
    Populations are declining not because of same sex marriages but because of extreme secularism and misplaced enlightenment. Some European countries have experienced zero population growth for decades now. Yet they have only scanty same sex marriages. The same factors account for the projection that by 2050 India will overtake China as the world’s most populous country.

  20. Had they not come out to express their plight and had sex change, they would have remained ‘closet homosexuals’. The men who became women would have remained attracted to those who are now of their opposite sex and vice versa.

  21. This is a comment by Ijaz Rauf, author of this article

    @ Namelee
    1. You have every right to disagree, but please don’t expect us to take your word if you want to participate in a meaningful discussion, then for every argument or point you try to make please also present your evidence.

    2. No Rich Deem is not one of my source, if you check, I have referenced every source I used and the full list of references is provided at the end of the article

    3. As per your claim above 10% of homosexuality is explained by early childhood abuse, well don’t ignore other causes mentioned in the section “What causes the homosexuality” you deliberately ignore many, for example absent father, dominant mother, acceptability in culture etc. etc. but that’s all beside the point as there might be other reasons that have not yet been discovered, but the article only claims it is not normal (not genetic, hormonal, or caused by brain structure difference)

    4. You say “In the vast majority of cases, being born homosexual is like being born left handed. The individual can do nothing about it.” Well do you expect us to take your word for it? Where is your evidence for this huge claim? What about the whole association of ex-gays? How could they do something about it? Why the need for getting it removed from treatable psychological disorders, to prohibit (or take away the basic human rights) of those who do want to change and get treated? And please don’t answer with “they don’t know they cannot be tread” reparative therapy treatment has proven to work (please read the evidence in the original article).

    5. What is your point with Oprah Winfrey and Dr. Phil stories? Please just type ex-gay stories and you will get thousands of such stories which show that it’s a condition that is treatable. I have a couple of realities that I can relate, would that mean situations that I will relate are natural and untreatable? Even so should the society just accept it?

    6. The first shock I had was in England when I was studying for my PhD about 20 years ago when I read a new item that was entitled “You are a bitch but I love you” the story was accompanied with a photograph where there was a female dog in white robe with a man in tuxedo standing next to the dog. The crux of the story was that the man was marrying that female dog because he was in love with her,

    7. The second shock I had recently (about a year ago) while driving to work when I heard on (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) CBC radio about a social experiments to question the morality and our concept of it (or reason behind it). The researcher was talking about the social experiment they did in which the put forward a question to randomly selected group to say something about the morality of a situation. The story was that there was a man and woman who are not married fell in love and were together, the girl was on pills but they still used a condom for extra protection so there is no possibility of conceiving children having related thisistory they asked the participant group “Do you see anything morally wrong with their action of love making” the response was 90-10 where 90% found nothing wrong with it only 10 percent saying well they are not married yet and thus should not have a sexual relationship, having heard that the researchers reveal to the participant that “Oh sorry we forgot to mention that the man and woman are brother and sister” and hearing that the response of the group was unanimous “Oh this is wrong” the researcher asked but why? The participants said oh because the children will be deformed, the researcher said but we said they used extra protection to make sure no possibility of conceiving children and as per the researcher the group could not come up with any other good reason to declare it immoral or sinful except for religion.

    8. The point I am trying to make with these two events is that, when you open the floodgates of promiscuity then there are no boundaries, where would you draw the line? Who is going to stop humans from degrading themselves to animals living on instincts rather rising above animal behaviour and becoming spiritual human beings? The results could be devastating for the societal peace. So please do not try to impose on the society that homosexuality is normal and cannot be changed, while all the scientific evidence is there that it could be changed through hormonal therapy and/or reparative therapy and it has proven to effectively work and there might be other treatments for this disorder or malfunction of human beings that we need to concentrate on discovering rather than prohibiting psychiatrists from providing treatment to even those who want to change homosexual behaviour. Just google it and you will find many on the internet begging to guide them how to treat this disorder, have mercy on those individual and please do not respond by saying oh well they want to change under pressure from society because in the current time being gay is fashionable and I can say pressure is on the opposite side

    9. Finally I would like to rest my case here unless there is some hard evidence refuting anything that I have expressed in the article and at this juncture, I would like to clarify though, when you say something is wrong that does not mean you hate those who take that action. We regularly admonish and sometimes even punish (does not have to be physical, depravation from privileges is also a form of punishment) our children for something they do wrong, does not mean we hate them, in fact it is our extreme form of love for our children that compels us to punish them or admonish them from something wrong to change their behaviours to make them better persons. I do understand that the same is true from the opposite side, but to resolve we do have to utilize common set of rules and principles and go with the facts which I tried to do in this article and in my responses to the comments I received following its publication at themuslimtimes.org.

  22. Important to note – this author wrote this article shortly after discovering one of his sons is gay. So, there is no impartiality, and therefore no merit to this paper riddled with grammatical mistakes, spelling errors, awkward clauses, and outdated information based on homophobic sources. Try again, Ijaz. Writing poorly sourced dissertations will not turn your son straight again.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.