Islam - What's your view on it?

[TenEightyOne]

I was trying to state that the purpose of male/female organs is to reproduce if you look at it from a biology standpoint.

And you're wrong about that exclusivity as well. They have a number of functions.

 

[Imari]

@Imari I agree. But in biology humans being homosexual does not make sense. Socially it does. You are misenterpreting my statement perhaps for being antigay, which I am not.

If by "biology" what you actually mean is reproduction. "Biology" is just the science which deals with the study of life and living organisms. Homosexuality makes perfect sense biologically, given how humans are physically "engineered".

As I said, your argument only holds up if you view sex as just for reproduction. And I think there's rather more anti-gay coming through in your posts than you might think, whether it's intended or not. If you say:

I understand you want to debunk my statement, but for the majority of lifeforms a male and female component are required to reproduce. I do not dispute your statement that it happens in other life forms. There are even lifeforms that reproduce themselves without a male/female component. But like I also stated nature is not perfect and that makes it beautifull.

There's a strong implication here that nature would be closer to perfect if homosexuals didn't exist. When you strip your arguments back, they come down to a fundamental assertion that there's something not right about homosexuality. Which sort of ignores that natural laws don't obey morality. They aren't right or wrong, they simply are.

Homosexuals exist, just like gravity and rocks and porpoises. To say "this rock is too jagged, it's not right, it's against nature and doesn't make sense" is pretty ridiculous. Yet somehow it makes sense to you to do it with a human, because you've been raised in a culture that has a history of thousands of years of oppressing and demonising homosexual behaviour.

Consider that for a long time females were treated as similarly sub-human, and think about how ridiculous and backwards that seems to us now in the 21st century. Are homosexuals truly lesser beings that don't conform to the natural order? Or is it just you that has trouble getting your head around the fact that some people can enjoy sexual contact with someone of the same sex?

I was just sharing my view on the fact that male/female organs exist for reproduction in biology.

And you're wrong. They exist to serve a number of functions. For example, the male penis is also used to expel urine.

 

[PocketZeven]

If by "biology" what you actually mean is reproduction. "Biology" is just the science which deals with the study of life and living organisms. Homosexuality makes perfect sense biologically, given how humans are physically "engineered".

As I said, your argument only holds up if you view sex as just for reproduction. And I think there's rather more anti-gay coming through in your posts than you might think, whether it's intended or not. If you say:



There's a strong implication here that nature would be closer to perfect if homosexuals didn't exist. When you strip your arguments back, they come down to a fundamental assertion that there's something not right about homosexuality. Which sort of ignores that natural laws don't obey morality. They aren't right or wrong, they simply are.

Homosexuals exist, just like gravity and rocks and porpoises. To say "this rock is too jagged, it's not right, it's against nature and doesn't make sense" is pretty ridiculous. Yet somehow it makes sense to you to do it with a human, because you've been raised in a culture that has a history of thousands of years of oppressing and demonising homosexual behaviour.

Consider that for a long time females were treated as similarly sub-human, and think about how ridiculous and backwards that seems to us now in the 21st century. Are homosexuals truly lesser beings that don't conform to the natural order? Or is it just you that has trouble getting your head around the fact that some people can enjoy sexual contact with someone of the same sex?



And you're wrong. They exist to serve a number of functions. For example, the male penis is also used to expel urine.

You misunderstand, I am not against homosexuality at all. I just adresses this because religion uses this as an argument. I am anti religion though. I enjoy sex like any other straight or lgbt person. I perhaps phrased my opinion a little unfortunately. Perfection is in a social aspect relative and beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

One can urinate without a penis. A penis was built to be erected when aroused and inserted from a biology standpoint.

 

[TenEightyOne]

A penis was built to be erected when aroused and inserted from a biology standpoint.

And either gender can get an orgasm from receiving that. That seems an odd design if what you say about "natural" design is true.

 

[Scaff]

You misunderstand, I am not against homosexuality at all. I just adresses this because religion uses this as an argument. I am anti religion though. I enjoy sex like any other straight or lgbt person. I perhaps phrased my opinion a little unfortunately. Perfection is in a social aspect relative and beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

One can urinate without a penis. A penis was built to be erected when aroused and inserted from a biology standpoint.

I think the biggest issue I have with the language you are using is that anything was built or designed, none of it was.

 

[Imari]

One can urinate without a penis. A penis was built to be erected when aroused and inserted from a biology standpoint.

One can also procreate without a penis. A penis becomes erect in a number of situations, not just sexual arousal. Whether it should be inserted is up for debate, it's not necessary.

And assuming that there is a design philosophy behind the human form is very much not the opinion that someone that is anti-religion holds. That's a profoundly religious belief. That the penis was "built" requires that there be a Builder, Mr. I'm anti-religion.

 

[PocketZeven]

I think the biggest issue I have with the language you are using is that anything was built or designed, none of it was.

That wasnt my intention. So sorry to bring in some confusion.

One can also procreate without a penis. A penis becomes erect in a number of situations, not just sexual arousal. Whether it should be inserted is up for debate, it's not necessary.

And assuming that there is a design philosophy behind the human form is very much not the opinion that someone that is anti-religion holds. That's a profoundly religious belief. That the penis was "built" requires that there be a Builder, Mr. I'm anti-religion.

Perhaps in alternative theories, but a penis has primarily (i did not emphasise exclusively) evolved into an ingenius seed delivery organ. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penis

I regretfully used "built", but being a believer in evolution, I should have said "evolved". I am not "mr." anything by the way.

 

[Imari]

Perhaps in alternative theories, but a penis has primarily (i did not emphasise exclusively) evolved into an ingenius seed delivery organ. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penis

You seem intent on pigeonholing a multifunctional organ into a single niche that most conveniently serves your desire to paint human sex as purely procreation. This requires you to both ignore other functionality of the penis, and then ignore other uses of sexual contact beyond procreation.

Do you not see how you've had to ignore fairly huge parts of human biology and culture to even begin to support your conclusion? Perhaps if the bridge requires that much propping up it wasn't really stable to begin with...

I regretfully used "built", but being a believer in evolution, I should have said "evolved".

Even making that substitution, your original statement is demonstrably false.

My opinion is that while humans arent built to be homosexual, nature however was never built to be perfect.

It's your opinion that humans haven't evolved to be homosexual, except that they have. That's literally how we have homosexuals, bisexuals, and every other sexuality and paraphilia. Those humans evolved in the exact same way that every other "normal" human did.

Or are you suggesting that homosexuals are not human? I mean, I guess you could technically claim that they're another species. You'd be wrong about that too, but you can try if you like.

I am not "mr." anything by the way.

Your profile suggests that you're male and thus English would use the term Mister to address you, but you may be identified however you like. Is it Ms. I'm anti-religion, or are you non-binary?

 

[PocketZeven]

You seem intent on pigeonholing a multifunctional organ into a single niche that most conveniently serves your desire to paint human sex as purely procreation. This requires you to both ignore other functionality of the penis, and then ignore other uses of sexual contact beyond procreation.

Do you not see how you've had to ignore fairly huge parts of human biology and culture to even begin to support your conclusion? Perhaps if the bridge requires that much propping up it wasn't really stable to begin with...



Even making that substitution, your original statement is demonstrably false.



It's your opinion that humans haven't evolved to be homosexual, except that they have. That's literally how we have homosexuals, bisexuals, and every other sexuality and paraphilia. Those humans evolved in the exact same way that every other "normal" human did.

Or are you suggesting that homosexuals are not human? I mean, I guess you could technically claim that they're another species. You'd be wrong about that too, but you can try if you like.



Your profile suggests that you're male and thus English would use the term Mister to address you, but you may be identified however you like. Is it Ms. I'm anti-religion, or are you non-binary?

You are mistakenly debunking on the premise of me being anti-homosexuals. I mearly said biologically organisms have evolved to multiply and therefor have organs that facilitate that. You are focusing to much on that and fail to understand the next part, where I clearly emphasised that humans (and other social species) is not bound by this. In my first statement about this I already seperated this. Why do you choose to ignore that?

If you really want to debunk me then explain, from a purely scientific biology viewpoint and not regarding the social aspect, what function does sex have?

I am not a mr "anything". I misused the quotes so sorry about that. But hopefully you understood that. I am just me and not a SJW against religion. Although admittedly religion has some positive sides, I fail to see the benefits outweigh the negatives it brings.

 

[Imari]

You are mistakenly debunking on the premise of me being anti-homosexuals.

So you keep saying, Mr. Homosexuality is unnatural.

If you really want to debunk me then explain, from a purely scientific biology viewpoint and not regarding the social aspect, what function does sex have?

Clearly you don't understand how cherry picking works. If you ignore all evidence except what supports your beliefs, of course you'll always be "correct". I can prove the world is flat if I get to omit all the evidence of curvature.

 

[PocketZeven]

So you keep saying, Mr. Homosexuality is unnatural.



Clearly you don't understand how cherry picking works. If you ignore all evidence except what supports your beliefs, of course you'll always be "correct". I can prove the world is flat if I get to omit all the evidence of curvature.

What beliefs? What are you referring to? I was referring to facts. If you take the social aspect out of it, humans, like other organisms, want to reproduce. Homosexuality has no purpose in this aspect. That doesnt mean its unnatural. Something I never claimed.

Nature is not perfect by design. Humans are creative social beings and make irrational/illogical choices everyday. Why do some people prefer a brand/colour etc? Sometimes the irrational can even lead to something great. You are trying to twist my statement into something negative, but I am not having any of it.

I wasnt cherrypicking sir. I already stated my beliefs but you chose to ignore a whole chunk of it and focused on one specific part.

I try to approach subject like religion, politics, sexuality from different point of views. Religion for example makes no scientific sense to me. Everything about the creation, God/gods, offerings, wonders, ceramonies etc. just seem like fiction/fairytales to make sense of things people didnt understand at the time. However religion does have the power to bring people who are devided together and give people hope in darker times socially. On the flipside its an excuse to demonize, wage war etc.

 

[Imari]

That doesnt mean its unnatural. Something I never claimed.

You said that humans weren't built to be homosexual, but that nature isn't perfect. Does that mean that homosexuals are natural but aberrant? Unnatural? Cyborgs? Aliens?

I think that summarising that statement as "homosexuals are unnatural" is a pretty fair reading, and if you want to provide more definition as to what exactly it is about humans that means that they're not built to be homosexual then have at it.

So far you've managed "penises and vaginas are necessary for babies". Great. So every part of a human that isn't a penis or a vagina is superfluous? Or perhaps humans are complex beings, and actually all their physical and social characteristics go into creating a society that can raise and nurture the next generation?

Nature is not perfect by design.

What are you even talking about? Nature is not designed. Nature just is. Was gravity designed? Is gravity imperfect? Is the colour blue imperfect?

Your religiously inspired view of the universe as this created object is getting in the way of your thinking rationally. You can blame the culture that you grew up in if you like, we're all aware how heavily western culture leans on Christian and Abrahamic tradition and morality. But if you actually want to think independently and rationally you might want to put some effort into breaking out of that particular mould.

I wasnt cherrypicking sir. I already stated my beliefs but you chose to ignore a whole chunk of it and focused on one specific part.

Incorrect. Your beliefs rely on you having a very blinkered view of human sexuality for their justification. I chose to point out that of course one can come to any conclusion that one likes if one limits the evidence that one will accept. If one were to choose to look at human sexuality in the totality of how it exists in reality however, one might see something quite different.

Have you heard of the fable of the blind men and the elephant?

 

[PocketZeven]

You said that humans weren't built to be homosexual, but that nature isn't perfect. Does that mean that homosexuals are natural but aberrant? Unnatural? Cyborgs? Aliens?

I think that summarising that statement as "homosexuals are unnatural" is a pretty fair reading, and if you want to provide more definition as to what exactly it is about humans that means that they're not built to be homosexual then have at it.

So far you've managed "penises and vaginas are necessary for babies". Great. So every part of a human that isn't a penis or a vagina is superfluous? Or perhaps humans are complex beings, and actually all their physical and social characteristics go into creating a society that can raise and nurture the next generation?



What are you even talking about? Nature is not designed. Nature just is. Was gravity designed? Is gravity imperfect? Is the colour blue imperfect?

Your religiously inspired view of the universe as this created object is getting in the way of your thinking rationally. You can blame the culture that you grew up in if you like, we're all aware how heavily western culture leans on Christian and Abrahamic tradition and morality. But if you actually want to think independently and rationally you might want to put some effort into breaking out of that particular mould.



Incorrect. Your beliefs rely on you having a very blinkered view of human sexuality for their justification. I chose to point out that of course one can come to any conclusion that one likes if one limits the evidence that one will accept. If one were to choose to look at human sexuality in the totality of how it exists in reality however, one might see something quite different.

Have you heard of the fable of the blind men and the elephant?

Again I agree that humans are not 2 dimensial beings. I adressed that already.

You are reading to much into the first part of my statement. It was abbreviated for the sake of keeping it on topic. You are interpreting it differently then my intention. Like I tried to explain in multiple posts I meant to say that biologically being homosexual has no purpose. But I very much imbrace the social side of it. I agree with you, I just seperated the biological view on homosexuality and social view. Dont focus just on one part of my statement. I already emphasized that humans are social beings and that superseed their biological design (again for the lack of better word) and pushes evolution. cells, viruses behave much more predictable then complicated beings like humans.

Nature evolves to a certain "design" and purpose (survival of the fittest?). For the lack of a better word I used "design". While nature does evolve around certain rules, its imperfections that also push evolution. I found an artical that interestly addresses the difference in intrepertation between europe and US. Perhaps that is where the confusion is coming from?

https://www.metanexus.net/idea-design-nature-science-or-phenomenology/

To emphasise again, I do not believe in god/gods or a higher being created something out of nothing. I am actually the opposite of thinking the world was "created". Why do you think that? Nature having design, doesnt mean that it had to be designed by something/someone.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I just seperated the biological view on homosexuality and social view.

You don't seem to realise that this is a major flaw in your view. We're driven to create social groupings as much as we're driven to put thingies into doo-dahs.

 

[PocketZeven]

You don't seem to realise that this is a major flaw in your view. We're driven to create social groupings as much as we're driven to put thingies into doo-dahs.

I share your view. But for arguments sake I seperated it a view from the perspective of the purpose in biology and social purpose. Nature mainly evolves with purpose, but not always. I am very much aware evolution happens among biology as in social science.

edit: correction

 

[Scaff]

.

Nature evolves to a certain "design" and purpose (survival of the fittest?).

Nope.

For the lack of a better word I used "design". While nature does evolve around certain rules, its imperfections that also push evolution. I found an artical that interestly addresses the difference in intrepertation between europe and US. Perhaps that is where the confusion is coming from?

https://www.metanexus.net/idea-design-nature-science-or-phenomenology/

To emphasise again, I do not believe in god/gods or a higher being created something out of nothing. I am actually the opposite of thinking the world was "created". Why do you think that? Nature having design, doesnt mean that it had to be designed by something/someone.

Well that article contains a whole load of bollocks.

 

[PocketZeven]

Nope.



Well that article contains a whole load of bollocks.

I will just conclude that we dont share certain views. But thank your for giving you personal insights on the topic.

 

[Scaff]

I will just conclude that we dont share certain views. But thank your for giving you personal insights on the topic.

Evolution is random, and that article isnt supported by a single piece of evidence (not is it able to supply one) and is ID dressed up in a new suit.

 

[PocketZeven]

Evolution is random, and that article isnt supported by a single piece of evidence (not is it able to supply one) and is ID dressed up in a new suit.

Evolution is natural selection and biology has building blocks and there is a certain "design" or code (I cant find a better word to describe it) in DNA.

 

[Scaff]

Evolution is natural selection

Not that simple, and it's still random

and biology has building blocks and there is a certain "design" or code (I cant find a better word to describe it) in DNA.

Appearance of design is not design.

 

[PocketZeven]

Not that simple, and it's still random


Appearance of design is not design.

I understand your complaint, but cant find a better word then design. Nature is not anarchy though, it follows a set of rules or restrictions etc. with a certain intent and purpose. But that said we have evolved a nose for a certain purpose and not randomly. That we can pierce them, sniff drugs with them is not what they biologically evolved for.

 

[Scaff]

I understand your complaint, but cant find a better word then design.

I don't think you do understand given that you keep cutting the same intelegent design nonsense.

Nature is not anarchy though, it follows a set of rules or restrictions etc. with a certain intent and purpose.

Evolution has not intent or purpose, its random.

But that said we have evolved a nose for a certain purpose and not randomly. That we can pierce them, sniff drugs with them is not what they biologically evolved for.

Again no.
What your claiming here is pure, creationist based intelegent design, and it has zero scientific basis at all

 

[PocketZeven]

Again no.
What your claiming here is pure, creationist based intelegent design, and it has zero scientific basis at all

Creationist? Are you sure? That humans evolved a nose to breath, filter germs etc. was just random? I think you dont understand evolution? By "intent" I meant the process to achieve more efficiency or to adapt better to their surroundings/environment and ultimately reproduce or multiply. Nothing random about evolution at all.

You saying evolution is random does not make any sense at all.

"Evolution is not a random process. The genetic variation on which natural selection acts may occur randomly, but natural selection itself is not random at all. The survival and reproductive success of an individual is directly related to the ways its inherited traits function in the context of its local environment. Whether or not an individual survives and reproduces depends on whether it has genes that produce traits that are well adapted to its environment."

Oxford dictionary perhaps describes it much better then me:

"The process by which different kinds of living organism are believed to have developed from earlier forms during the history of the earth.

The idea of organic evolution was proposed by some ancient Greek thinkers but was long rejected in Europe as contrary to the literal interpretation of the Bible. Lamarck proposed a theory that organisms became transformed by their efforts to respond to the demands of their environment. Lyell demonstrated that geological deposits were the cumulative product of slow processes over vast ages. This helped Darwin towards a theory of gradual evolution over a long period by the natural selection of those varieties of an organism slightly better adapted to the environment and hence more likely to produce descendants. Combined with the later discoveries of the cellular and molecular basis of genetics, Darwin's theory of evolution has, with some modification, become the dominant unifying concept of modern biology."

 

[TenEightyOne]

You saying evolution is random does not make any sense at all.

Evolution absolutely is random - it's a never-ending series of random mutations.

That humans evolved a nose to breath, filter germs etc. was just random?

The process that led to humans as an identifiable species with those attributes was entirely down to chance. The prevalence of those features is due to environmental suitability.

 

[Scaff]

Creationist? Are you sure?

If it walks like a duck.....

That humans evolved a nose to breath, filter germs etc. was just random?

The process that drives Evolution is random, your own source states so. Natural selection isn't, but it's also certainly not targeted as you are suggesting with design.

I think you dont understand evolution? By "intent" I meant the process to achieve more efficiency or to adapt better to their surroundings/environment and ultimately reproduce or multiply. Nothing random about evolution at all.

Plenty random about it your own source states a much.

You saying evolution is random does not make any sense at all.

"Evolution is not a random process. The genetic variation on which natural selection acts may occur randomly, but natural selection itself is not random at all. The survival and reproductive success of an individual is directly related to the ways its inherited traits function in the context of its local environment. Whether or not an individual survives and reproduces depends on whether it has genes that produce traits that are well adapted to its environment."

Oxford dictionary perhaps describes it much better then me:

"The process by which different kinds of living organism are believed to have developed from earlier forms during the history of the earth.

The idea of organic evolution was proposed by some ancient Greek thinkers but was long rejected in Europe as contrary to the literal interpretation of the Bible. Lamarck proposed a theory that organisms became transformed by their efforts to respond to the demands of their environment. Lyell demonstrated that geological deposits were the cumulative product of slow processes over vast ages. This helped Darwin towards a theory of gradual evolution over a long period by the natural selection of those varieties of an organism slightly better adapted to the environment and hence more likely to produce descendants. Combined with the later discoveries of the cellular and molecular basis of genetics, Darwin's theory of evolution has, with some modification, become the dominant unifying concept of modern biology."

And not a mention of a design.

 

[BobK]

Evolution is natural selection and biology has building blocks and there is a certain "design" or code (I cant find a better word to describe it) in DNA.

I understand your complaint, but cant find a better word then design. Nature is not anarchy though, it follows a set of rules or restrictions etc. with a certain intent and purpose. But that said we have evolved a nose for a certain purpose and not randomly. That we can pierce them, sniff drugs with them is not what they biologically evolved for.

Evolution is not goal-driven, things do not evolve "in order to" do something. Your insistence on design of necessity implies a designer.
Noses evolved they way they did because they simply worked better than what was before and incurred a survival advantage.

 

[Dennisch]

Noses evolved they way they did because

 

[BobK]

Absolutely. One of the major purposes of a nose is so that the juvenile-minded can pick their nose and fling it at each other. Who in their right mind would design something like that? Other than a juvenile-minded being, of course.

 

[Imari]

Nature having design, doesnt mean that it had to be designed by something/someone.

Yes, it does. Otherwise that would simply be ordered structure. A designed object has to have been designed. Otherwise it's not a designed object.

Nature mainly evolves with purpose, but not always.

Anthropomorphise much? Nature does not have a purpose. It would have to have a consciousness to have a purpose. Unless you believe in Gaia, that's probably not the case.

Nature is not anarchy though, it follows a set of rules or restrictions etc. with a certain intent and purpose.

Would you care to define these rules and restrictions? How about the intent and purpose of Nature? I'd be shocked if there's anything you can come up with that is more complex than a tautology that doesn't have demonstrable exceptions.

Evolution is essentially the combination of random variation with the statistics of large populations. It's that simple. No design, intent, purpose or rules required beyond a large enough population under selection pressure that passes traits between generations.

 

[PocketZeven]

Yes, it does. Otherwise that would simply be ordered structure. A designed object has to have been designed. Otherwise it's not a designed object.



Anthropomorphise much? Nature does not have a purpose. It would have to have a consciousness to have a purpose. Unless you believe in Gaia, that's probably not the case.



Would you care to define these rules and restrictions? How about the intent and purpose of Nature? I'd be shocked if there's anything you can come up with that is more complex than a tautology that doesn't have demonstrable exceptions.

Evolution is essentially the combination of random variation with the statistics of large populations. It's that simple. No design, intent, purpose or rules required beyond a large enough population under selection pressure that passes traits between generations.

If it walks like a duck.....


The process that drives Evolution is random, your own source states so. Natural selection isn't, but it's also certainly not targeted as you are suggesting with design.


Plenty random about it your own source states a much.


And not a mention of a design.

Evolution is not goal-driven, things do not evolve "in order to" do something. Your insistence on design of necessity implies a designer.
Noses evolved they way they did because they simply worked better than what was before and incurred a survival advantage.

Evolution does have a goal though. It is a reaction to change in the environment (purpose). It is not random. With "design" I meant the purpose of the genetic code that gives a being a certain trait. I never meant designed by a higher being or anything in that neighbourhood. I clearly am using the wrong word. I try to ask you guys, which word is more accurate because I cant think of a better word in english.

To explain my use of "design" again:
Mutations with the purpose to adapt and improve and increase the chance of survival of offspring. These are not random, but "mutations" with a purpose.

Which word should I use to describe that traits have evolved with purpose?