I was referred to a video which supposedly justified the sactioned murder of homosexuals by Islamic law. Naturally I was skeptical.

http://islamictube.net/view_video.php?view...dd8fe4e481144d8

My skepticism was well warranted.

I do have to give the man credit for his discussion of the matter of homosexuality's naturalness. Indeed, humans are above the animal world because we have systems of morality and ethics and we can not govern our behavior by the idea that anything animals do is perfectly okay for us to do. One thing I like about his commentary on this matter is that the reasoning used discounts both the "homosexuality is natural and therefore okay" and the "homosexuality is unnatural and therefore bad" arguments, even if he only mentions the arguments in support of the former proposition. I was also mildly amused at a religious person attacking what is in reality a counterargument to a religious proposition - that homosexuality is unnatural- by essentially arguing the original proposition had no merit in the first place.

He then discusses biological causes for homosexuality since it would be incomprehensible that a loving god would pass divine condemnation on homosexuals for their homosexuality if it weren't their fault. First he addresses proposed biological causes, then argues against the second half of this very premise.

In the first contention of this issue, the matter of glandular causes, he refers to a study showing that a certain gland in homosexuals was more like that in the opposite sex than those of their own sex, which would support the idea that their homosexuality was caused by their having a biologically different makeup. He makes what I consider to be a valid criticism in that since the study involved all postmortem examinations it could not be shown that the differences in glands were the cause of homosexual behavior or the effect of it.

In the second contention on this issue he addresses a study which claimed to have identified a gay gene. Criticisms of this study included that there was no control group, results were not reproducible, someone working on the study later claimed to have fixed the results, and the head of the study was gay and this compromised his neutrality since he would presumably have a vested interest in the results.

At this point he strays from the issue at hand to launch into a diatribe about AIDS being divine judgment upon homosexuals and anyone who engages in sexual behavior outside of marriage. Of course this ignores the fact that it can be acquired through blood transfusion or through needles used for vaccinations when proper sanitary procedures are not followed.

He later launches into a valid argument that people, regardless of whatever their biological inclinations may be, are also subject to free will. They can decide not to engage in morally reprehensible behavior even if they have natural urges to engage in them. The task, then, is to demonstrate that homosexuality is such a morally reprehensible behavior, which he attempts to do (in a subtle compromise of intellectual integrity) by lumping it in with adultery and pedophilia as well as by declaring it to be a danger to the family. He does not actually defend the premise that homosexuality is a danger to the family. The closest thing to such a defense was his mentioning that Islam separates boys from girls as well as boys from boys and girls from girls when they near the age of puberty because incest is wrong, following this up by also saying that homosexuality is wrong and is brought about when that type of incest is engaged in and then homosexual behavior supported by children later exploring with other children at school. It is true that incestuous relationships are damaging to the family, but this unfounded assertion that homosexuality is derived from incestuous childhood relationships is garbage.

The primary argument made in this video as justification for the murder of homosexuals is as follows:

1 Islam promotes the family above all else

2 Behaviors which threaten the family must be punished severely by death

3 Homosexuality threatens the family

Therefore: Homosexuality must be punished with death

There are various problems with this argument including that that the third premise is not proven nor is the second premise necessarily true.

Concerning premise 2, the most obvious flaw is that by executing persons who engage in some of the behaviors one may be causing far more harm to the family than the behavior itself. An adulterous father, for instance, is of even less use to his family if he is deceased and unable to provide for them.

Given the overall nature of this discussion, my approach to premise 3 will be more extensive as it more directly speaks to the issue of homosexuality.The typical arguments in support of this premise are as follows (please feel free to pose other arguments as to how homosexuality threatens the family, I'll be happy to address them or if I am unable to, to concede this point):

1 Homosexuals can not reproduce and are therefore unable to form families.

- This argument fails because: A homosexual couple may adopt or otherwise make arrangements to procreate, maintaining custody of the child. There is no proof that homosexual couples are less capable of raising children than than heterosexuals and there is substantial evidence to support the proposition that homosexuals are capable of effectively raising children.

2 Homosexuality implies adultery, which is inherently damaging to the family.

- This argument fails because: homosexuals are perfectly capable of maintaining fidelity to each other. The very fact that homosexuals are pursuing marriage rights is proof that homosexuals can be in long lasting stable loving relationships.

What threat, then, does homosexuality actually pose to the family? None. Is it outside of the Islamic structure of a family, yes... but it does not inherently damage families. Rather, the fact that homosexual couples are perfectly capable of raising families is a direct threat to the assertion of Islam that the Islamic family structure is the only success-able one and by extension a threat to Islam in general.

Believing he had provided a sound argument that homosexuality is a threat to the family, he moves on to the punishment itself. There is no effort to hide the fact that Islam orders the murder of homosexuals. However, there is an attempt here to make such sanctioned murder seem less barbaric by mentioning that Islam requires 4 witnesses to a person's homosexual activity or a confession before the murder may be carried out. This is not unlike other arguments that "Its okay if you keep it discrete" but lets face it... if people being aware of it happening means you're subject to murder then no, its not okay.

So in conclusion... there still is no sound argument for the murder of homosexuals as its sanctioned by Islam since

-homosexuality is not the threat to the family that Islam claims it to be and

-murdering homosexuals is an actual harm done to families.

Also, concepts such as compassion for the sick are still beyond the ability of this brand of religious thinker to grasp.

Signing out with great fatigue since its now 4:20am,

Doubly Dead Deme (under sharia law)