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.
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.
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.
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.
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?