I generally find my religion pretty close to human nature, it looks very logical, quite practical but there is one thing that confuses me, totally stumps me: its stand on homosexuality. Not only my religion but all religions strongly condemn it, on the other hand homosexuals claim that it is the most natural thing for them.The preceding is the unaltered 16 January post written by Beenish Kahn, a Pakistani woman living in Toronto, Canada.
Now I am not taking any sides, I am sharing just my confusion,
1. Apart from humans, homosexuality is a common occurrence in many animals. So is nature trying to say that it is only for animals to follow such instincts or is it trying to say that it is but natural to have something different from normal?
2. If according to religion it is but unnatural then why do people claim to be so helpless against it? If it is like any other sin then why do homosexuals bear so many discriminations just to publicly state their sexual identity? From where do they get the courage of bearing all the bullying? In short, why would anyone deliberately choose a hard path if it is something unnatural?
3. When an octogenarian gay couple get married after 50 years of living together, doesn’t it show companionship more than any other emotion?
I do not want to judge anyone and least of all in the light of religion but I do want to know what exactly is religious logic behind it? Is it religious politics of many centuries, is it holy scriptures understood the wrong way or is it people not understanding the laws of nature?
Routinely, I read things which expand my knowledge. Other times I may contemplate and ponder over something I've read (but not retain the information). And, occasionally, my conversations are fueled by the ideas of others. Once in a blue moon I'm driven to respond with an entire post of my own. This is one of the latter.
Not all religions condemn homosexuality as is initially posited by Ms Kahn, (Buddhism, Hinduism, and Confucianism don't address it or are neutral) but she is correct in regard to the big three (Christianity, Judaism, and Islam).
Then she poses a few statements followed by seven questions outlining 'her confusion'.
The first declarative statement she makes is factually bass-ackwards. It should read: Although male-on-male and female-on-female sexual acts have been documented in a large number of species in the animal kingdom, it's routinely interpreted as acts of dominance or sexual play. The exception are humans, who form long-lasting, intimate, emotional bonds with members of the same sex.
Her next seven sentences are all questions. Each different. But there is a similar tone in the confusion of each. As I see it, the crux of her problem is she is either unable to—or can't—see the situation logically, from a shoe-on-the-other-foot perspective.
Since puberty, humans of the female persuasion have caused my nervous system to react with an "attraction impulse." When I look at a man my brain registers the same response as when looking at an ostrich or a chair. Neutral. Non-erotic. This is not a conscious choice I make or have ever made and (most importantly) I'm incapable of making a different one. I don't choose.
However, there are millions of people on the planet who's nervous systems provide an attraction impulse for both genders, and some of these polysexual people—because of a desire to conform or not be shunned by their community—choose to have a sexual relationship only with members of the opposite sex (many of these people use religion to aid their choice by touting "sin dogma").
Also, there are hundreds of millions of people on the planet who's nervous systems provide an attraction impulse for only members of the same sex. They don't choose...no more than the billions who are only attracted to the opposite sex.
Until the last few centuries 'church' was synonymous with 'government' (in many countries, it still is) and, most of the time, government is run by wealthy dominant males. The leaders of all governments make and enforce rules in order to maintain their status quo. This could explain why religions support(ed), condone(ed) and didn't/don't consider a sin: owning chattel, burning witches, gender apartheid, racial segregation, etc.Ms Kahn...is your only confusion, really, the church's disapproval of buggery?
Also:
No comments:
Post a Comment