As a non-religious gay I probably wasn't invited anyway. But this kind of thinking is what leads conservatives to so much repression and hate. The idea that the wants and needs of your body are something which the mind must actively fight. That the scratchy, ill-fitting wool sweater of your culture is something that you must keep on at all costs. And it leads to resentment of people who are not under such self-imposed restrictions.
There is a reason in queer culture that 'shadiness' is a bigger sin than anger. Shadiness is what happens when someone represses their true feelings. Those feelings don't go away though, they just resurface in other unexpected and non-adaptive ways.
Even if you want to burn down my house and murder me because I wronged you or slighted your family, that's not morally correct. We have secular law to codify what we see as morally right and I think it makes sense that before states really existed or unified people through national myths, that function was served by Gods
Distance makes the heart grow fonder
Repressing desires to stay on the couch and going for a run instead gives me freedom to experience the world without being out of breath or stopping halfway on the hike.
Repressing desires to keep all of my money for myself leads me to be more charitable, which is better for others.
So yeah, self-control is a great thing to cultivate because the presence of a desire does not mean that the desire is good. And even if it's not bad, then it's something that can hinder a greater good.
If you ask a heroin addict what their true feelings are, the wants and needs of their bodies, it's probably just "get high".
If you ask a 16 year old kid with a porn addiction, it's probably just "get off".
There is no shortage of maladaptive desires in the world, and no shortage of ways to fulfill them. I think you can trace probably half the world's problems to one word: "addiction". The motivation system of the brain gone wrong.
I think what you're trying to point to here is the other half of the world's problems, which is effectively: "acceptance", or rather, the lack thereof. The empathetic system of the brain gone wrong.
However, raiding the cabinet of historically religious practices and stripping god out of them can be helpful. A lot of things we do on impulse don't actually make us happy, and cutting them out for a bit can be a good way to examine whether they've become unhelpful/unskillful habits. I don't think drinking is inherently bad, but "dry January" can be a nice way to check that I'm not developing a dependency. I'm glad I have a smartphone but I do find that periodically being completely away from screens is a good check. Sex, food, other substances, media, can all be good but can also become parts of habits that don't actually lead to happiness. Temporary self-denial can be a useful tool in reworking one's relationship to these, even if you're definitely going to keep them in your life in some form.
In Islam you're not hated or judged for what you call your true feelings. You are however instructed to gain mastery over those feelings and make them subordinate to you rather than the other way around. Fasting is one of the things that can help with that. As for feeling invited, honestly I get why you may think that (because a lot of Muslims do a frankly terrible job of marketing) but that's not how Islam looks at people, it doesn't look at people as unchanging monoliths, instead you are seen as a blank slate and whatever actions you do impact your life here and the life hereafter. Basically your inner reality is between you and God. Islam fully understands people have all sorts of desires, lusts, etc, the thing is in Islam you aren't cursed for having those desires, but for acting upon them rather than gaining control over them. HTH.
I'm not a religious person, but I believe (sic) that behind fasting periods, there's a training around the theme of balance.
That sounds exactly as repressive and hateful that other major religion, as well as historical laws which punished homosexual acts in many western countries. You have highlighted the difference between our desires and our behavior, but you seem to deliberately avoid acknowledging that straight people are permitted an institution in which their desires can be met within constraints, but gay people are not.
"You're invited to participate in our faith so long as you scrupulously act like someone else for your whole life" sounds a lot like an unvitation.
You also acknowledge that even straight people have constraints in Islam, i.e. no sleeping around etc, why not also argue that it's somehow terrible that straight people have to repress their desire to fornicate?
"You're invited to participate in our faith so long as you turn your focus away from your base desires and towards God and the hereafter"
You're insinuating that you're being targeted or singled out whereas Islam "blanket-bans" entire categories of what are considered regressive behaviours such as overeating, you're not being targeted here, so can you stop with the victim complex please? Islam is as against environmental destruction, abuse of animals or overeating as much as it is against what it sees as wrongful sexual desire. What I feel like is being missed for the trees here is that the "holisticness" of Islam. It's against what it sees as destructive behavior, without prejudicing or singling out any specific group. Look at the higher purpose here.
Murder? Mayhem? Destruction? Greed?
I agree homosexuality is a fine thing, but your comment is altogether far tooo broad.
Societal morals are often about denying ourselves things we want to do: often because our actions affect others or offend others, but also often for no strong reason at all. Virtue is almost defined by holding ourselves back from unvirtuous actions: can virtue exist in the world if we can all do whatever we will?
Notice how imams are not celibate like Catholic priests. In fact celibacy isn't even a thing in Islam. You're actively encouraged to get into a relationship and get married so you can fulfill your sexual desires. There's even a prophetic quote that says getting married is half of your religion. It's that important. Of course some things like drinking is not allowed even if you desire it and that's just something you have to deal with. But even if you cave it's not the end of the world because the grading system is heavily curved in your favor.
Having desires is natural and human and it's even ok to indulge in them every once in a while in a healthy way.
The Islamic term for this is nafs which means "self" or sometimes "ego". So fulfilling human desires is filling your nafs. But just like overfilling your stomach can be bad, overfilling your nafs is also bad so you need to practice discipline in not getting carried away.
Liberal humanism is against what it sees as destructive and oppressive behavior, without prejudicing or singling out any specific group. Look at the higher purpose here.
To me, this is just another angle of what the parent comment was talking about. We are not blank slates. We have millions of years of evolutionary instinct and genetics/epigenetics built into us AND we have everything we are fed (literally and figuratively) affecting us before we even get a chance to start thinking about 'who' or 'what' we are.
The blank slate line of thinking is what conservatives in the US implicitly (or explicitly) use to make the claim that being gay is a choice. It seems that it's just another way to justify punishing people for things that may be beyond their control, because if we are blank slates, then everything about you is your own fault.
Obviously there are aspects about ourselves that we can change, but the blank slate ideal is a dangerous slope to slide down.
>You are however instructed to gain mastery over those feelings and make them subordinate to you rather than the other way around
Genuine question: How is this different from saying "it's not bad to be gay, it's just bad to not repress your feelings and never act on them", as is a common (paraphrased) refrain among those who are anti-lgbt?
> instead you are seen as a blank slate and whatever actions you do impact your life here and the life hereafter
I assumed you meant that people will be welcomed because they are a blank slate that can be written upon by those seeking to influence them.
But, I am not going to try to stop her or make her life difficult with constant needling. Just like you shouldn't stop those who are willing to constrain their own sexuality for the sake of avoiding what they perceive as spiritual pollution, just like Greta is willing to constrain herself to avoid environmental pollution. To each their own, and for some living up according to their idea of honor is a greater comfort than more direct gratification. In time, we all learn something valuable even from those we don't agree with.
Can we however agree that America and other countries that embraced Western culture are great because you can live your life as you want and observant Muslims can live their lives as they want?
I'll admit it's probably not hugely different though to my understanding Islam's purpose is more about guiding a person to have a relationship with God rather than being anti-anything, and about doing what is within one's ability to move towards that goal. Like I said in a different reply it's not like you are being singled out for hatred or anything like that, the purpose is for everyone to get themselves right with God.
> Murder? Mayhem? Destruction? Greed?
The bar is so low you consider not being a dangerous sociopath a virtue?
Fasting is a practice of discipline; consciously choosing to forgo one thing to focus on another. You don't not eat because God or Allah or Buddha or whomever actually care that you didn't eat. You don't eat to focus on mastering your own desires such that you can better your own mindfulness of adherence to the other strictures of your faith during your daily life, even when you are not fasting.
The reason many religions focus on fasting is that it is a common and simple way to be aware of a temptation and choose to not give into it.
Edit: I should add, in case my point wasn't obvious, that none of the above has to do with you or anyone else. It is purely a personal thing.
Anyone who brags about how much religious fasting they are doing are just showing that they have been wasting their time and have gotten nothing from it.
And no, fulfilling the very bare minimum is not virtuous. When virtuous person stops being virtuous, they fall to "average", not to the lowest possible.
You can accept that or not, but it's disingenuous to equate asking gays never to have sexual or romantic relationships, to asking non-gay people just to curb excess.
That's not an equal imposition, it feels like self-equivocating ad-hominem to read "you're not being targeted here, so can you stop with the victim complex please?"
If you agree that it's better for gay people to never experience intimacy, please just say so, without labelling the concern (that gay people may feel less invited) as ridiculous
No thanks.
To me, that sounds like a very fancy way of saying : repress your feelings and who you are to conform to an arbitrary set of rules written by one dude hundreds years ago.
Enlighten me on how are you supposed to act/feel to “gain mastery over your feeling” when said feeling is “as a male; I want to spend the rest of my life sharing experiences with this other male, intimate and not intimate, without endangering anyone else” ?
This is a form of discipline and mastery of desires. Enlighten me how this is not what a faith built on God’s word should be commanding on any individual?
Forbidding a person from lusting anyone other than spouse whether they like it or not is no different than forbidding a person from having gay desires. And no amount of self identification can label that inhumane.
Why should you repress those feelings ? Unless they don't hurt you or hurt others; I see absolutely no reason to hide them or not act on them. What makes them "sinful" is you deciding they are sinful according to some made up rules you read in a book.
> Enlighten me how this is not what a faith built on God’s word should be commanding on any individual?
- Rule nb 1: Avoid harming yourself as much as you can.
- Rule nb 2: Avoid harming others as much as you can.
- Rule nb 3: Let others be.Orientation is not a choice, and is orthogonal to identification.
I believe that same-sex relationships can be as profoundly fulfilling, enriching, and pro-social as heterosexual relationships.
That marrying a straight woman with a gay man is profoundly unfulfilling for both.
And that denying a class of people something so profound, freely enjoyed by everyone else, and which does not harm anyone else, can indeed be seen as inhumane.
I don't believe for a second any person has this immutable orientation, straight or gay. And likewise, I don't believe it is inhumane for a person to avoid a relationship that is illegitimate. Trying to argue otherwise is like arguing the color blue can also be seen as red.
Have you felt strong attraction for both sexes? If not, have you tried to?