Pro-Gay books for 5 year olds?

[Cara.]

I think it's odd (gay penguins?), but if it means one less kid is bullied into a suicidal depression because of his/her sexual orientation, then it's all to the good.

 

I'm sure these same books showcase "normal" (white anglo) families, the token ethnic family, a physically disabled parent, a single parent household, adopted/foster kids, etc. No one gets offended that these books are promoting "ethnicity" or physical disability or adoption; it's simply an acknowledgement that families come in all shapes and sizes and colours (white and brown and black and rainbow).

[Che -Guevara]

^^^I doubt it would help in reducing the suicide rate among gay teens.

[xiinfaniin]

Only if the said sexual orientation is a natural affliction and not the product of one’s own preference yaa Cara!

 

[edit]^^I mean the taboo is legitimately placed in this instance.

[ElPunto]

^Even then - the suicide has to with a basic conflict of their 'orientation' and family values. Telling them there is a million and one others out there is not going to resolve that conflict. On that note - is there a need to tell anyone living in the western world above the age of 7 that gays exist????

[Cara.]

Xiin, sexual preference is innate. Do you choose to be straight? At some point in your life, did you decide that you're going to limit your sexual preference to women?

 

Is there anyone here who's going to claim that they occasionally consider having a same-sex partner, but desist on account of their values or upbringing?

 

ThePoint, most teens like to fit in, to be "normal", whatever that means. Knowing that there are other people like them may mitigate feelings of alienation. More importantly, it may make a callous classmate reconsider calling them names or marginalizing them.

[xiinfaniin]

Being straight is the default sexual orientation. It’s natural. To call other deviations innate is quite a leap yaa Cara!

That kind of argument to justify homo practices has become a passé’ now---it is not credible.

 

But what conclusive scientific evidence do you have to support such a claim yaa Cara?

[ElPunto]

Originally posted by Cara:

Xiin, sexual preference is innate. Do

you

choose to be straight? At some point in your life, did you decide that you're going to limit your sexual preference to women?

 

Is there anyone here who's going to claim that they occasionally consider having a same-sex partner, but desist on account of their values or upbringing?

 

ThePoint, most teens like to fit in, to be "normal", whatever that means. Knowing that there are other people like them may mitigate feelings of alienation. More importantly, it may make a callous classmate reconsider calling them names or marginalizing them.

Unless you're living in a cave - I think that latter point is fairly well known and part of the everyday culture. It's cool to have a gay friend etc etc.

 

As to innate or not - boy is that a deep well to be going into. But regardless - every society sets boundaries. If someone is innately sexually attracted to children or their siblings or animals or what have you - one cannot say because it is innate it's alright. There have to be lines - and they may be appear to be arbitrary. However, as Muslims - we may say they are not - they are divinely inspired. If any being may legitimately draw lines for humankind - it's their creator. If you so believe that is.

[Cara.]

Xiin, I see you neatly side-stepping the question. Calling heterosexuality the "default sexual orientation" does not actually establish anything. Right-handedness is natural and the dominant preference for many. That does not make left-handedness unnatural, and it does not prove that people choose one over the other. I ask again, do you choose to be straight? Was there a point at which you decided to forgoe sex with men? It may seem to be an absurd--even insulting--question, but I think the reluctance to answer it speaks volumes.

 

The Point, you say that "every society sets boundaries". Precisely. This society has decided it's wrong to discriminate against others because of their race or religion or sexual orientation. To raise the spectre of paedophilia or beastiality cheapens your argument saxiib. Arbitrary moral lines are wrong if they promote injustice, no matter how dearly a society clings on to them.

[xiinfaniin]

^^I am straight by choice yaa Cara! The fact it’s natural does not make my will to seek other sexual approaches impossible. Needlessly to say that fact alone renders your left-hand/right-hand comparison a case of false analogy. You should not confuse innate orientations with debased preferences for they are different. If you are however willing to make such a leap you need, I am afraid, to present more than left-hand/right-hand parallel to justify homosexuality as a innate practice.

[Faarax-Brawn]

Zoologists have known for many years that homosexuality isn't uncommon among animals. (My own cat has raised suspicions ever since he tried to mount a cowering male dachshund.) But I was surprised to learn recently that male sheep exhibit homosexuality at least as often as humans: roughly 8% of rams turn out to have sex exclusively with other rams.

 

You guys are talking about kids,the Gay community is defending the rights of gay Rams

Yep,Rams are gay folks!!

[ElPunto]

Originally posted by Cara:

The Point, you say that "every society sets boundaries". Precisely. This society has decided it's wrong to discriminate against others because of their race or religion or sexual orientation. To raise the spectre of paedophilia or beastiality cheapens your argument saxiib. Arbitrary moral lines are wrong if they promote injustice, no matter how dearly a society clings on to them.

Certainly this society has decided that - but refusing/objecting to indoctrinate one's children into contrary values isn't discrimination. Just as not teaching kids about ethnic minorities, religions isn't discrimination. I fail to see how the discrimination card makes it into this debate. This is definitely not the road I wanted to travel - to be debating gayness in a general contezt.

 

As an aside - my comments re paedepholia etc doesn't cheapen my argument. It goes to show how arbitrary this whole issue is and how various socities can decide what is and what is not appropriate for them.

 

 

And your phrase - "Arbitrary moral lines are wrong if they promote injustice, no matter how dearly a society clings on to them." - raises a whole plethora of other arguments. Legalizing/legimitizing gay marriage and relationships while refusing to allow willing and adult siblings to marry simply highlights the arbitariness of the west on this issue. Additionally, what is injustice? Is unjust not to allow the siblings to marry but the 2 gay men to? What about injustice against the Creator or does that not enter into the realm we are in? etc etc etc.

 

We've definitely strayed far from the topic and I've played a part. The question remains:

 

Is this type of indoctrination appropriate for young children?

 

A demain

[NGONGE]

Originally posted by xiinfaniin:

Being straight is the default sexual orientation. It’s natural. To call other deviations innate is quite a leap yaa Cara!

That kind of argument to justify homo practices has become a passé’ now---it is not credible.

 

But what conclusive scientific evidence do you have to support such a claim yaa Cara?

What a load of unsubstantiated nonsense, saaxib. Sexual urges have no default positions. They fall into all sorts of styles and categories and all can be argued to be normal. The only reason that straight relationships are considered ‘natural’ is because of procreation and religious requirements.

 

Do no go following the Catholic Church’s reasons for banning homosexuality with all this twaddle about it being not natural. Islam bans homosexuality because, simply, it’s the creator’s want. Since we submit to Islam and accept the message we are also required to accept the commandments. This is not at all different to sticking to one wife (or four) instead of fornicating with every willing woman/man. It’s also the same as not drinking a sweet cold bottle of Budweiser or a glass of whisky. There are no great logical explanations for such bans but we realise that it’s not our place (as Muslims) to question Allah’s commands.

 

In the story of Sodom & Gomorrah the actions of those people were referred to as a sin (or Faaxisha in Arabic). It was not referred to as unnatural! We really don’t need to follow Catholic doctrines in order to show how wrong something is. It is simply wrong because we, as Muslims, have been prohibited by our faith from indulging in it.

 

 

Living in the West, we are faced daily with all these problems and to feign shock or horror at such new secular ideas strikes me as being very naïve. It’s all there and we’ve always knew it was. Rather than box ourselves in a dark corner we aught to deal with these problems and find ways to hold on to our choices in life (being Muslim).

 

I personally find it distasteful to badmouth homosexuals, drunks or fornicators if they don’t happen to be Muslim to start with. A hasty favourite Nomad I know would call this moral relativism, I on the other hand, would call it a logical conclusion. These people you condemn for these practices neither conform to our faith or believe in our god. Once you know this fact it becomes quite laughable that you would be appalled that they have other undesirable traditions, practices or acts.

 

As for the toleration point, surely regardless of multicultural or democratic rules and consideration, as Muslims we are required to tolerate other faiths and people (with all those faiths and traditions entail). Tolerate I say, not accept or follow. The confused Nomad above that on the one hand agreed with the toleration point and on the other declared his total hatred for the people (rather than practice) does not sound like someone who gave this issue enough thought (or he’s just lying in order to be civil).

 

Still, my conclusions might all be wrong and maybe with a better argument I could be persuaded to see how this is unnatural as you say or how, in a secular state, schools should not be teaching about homosexuality and the like.

[Khalaf]

Ngonge we live in non-muslim lands, we do see these haraams my contention had more to do with the views of some muslims in regard to these sins.

 

MKA put it nicely here:

That is ofcourse if CG is a muslim, he would indeed find it difficult because it is forbidden to defend unlawful acts such as sodomy in this case or to even tolerate it because that would defeat the purpose of the existence in their belief of their religions moral and practical code, which clearly says and reitrates that sodomy is a sin, evil and despised by Allaah the exalted.

 

Islam considers he/she that are “fine” with these harams to have no iman, this article explains more.

 

Mida kale about ur post since u quoted xiin let him refute it, but there is something wrong wit this statement: There are no great logical explanations for such bans but we realise that it’s not our place (as Muslims) to question Allah’s commands.

 

^^^Ask yourself sxb why would Allah Most Great ban/condemn certain actions unless of course they are unbeneficial and harmful to mankind and society?

 

 

well said thepoint u silenced dem sxb...but what i can not understand do ppl here take the role of devils adovcate or really think like dis? :confused: ....never in my life see somalis who think its "okey" to give children gay stories or support "gay rights"......aduunyo as my ayeeyo says!

[Caano Geel]

Originally posted by xiinfaniin:

CG, as always, Xiin intends no pun. It’s becoming quite apparent that it’s difficult for you to concede!

Xiin, walaal its a shame that you didn't mean it as a pun, because it was funny.

 

No i'm afraid it doesnt parallel the showing of violence. I dont often hear people dying of gayness, but i have seen the victims of teenage mobs and of the cool gunknife culture.

 

I think your notion of *explicit* is a result of your understanding of deviance - I have never heard of any one choosing, it is completely irrational to place your self in the way of harm, social castigation and outright hostility simply because you fancy it - it wouldn't last. If you would like to discuss the notion of normal - biological, mathematical and social - all of which are every different to each other and vary in themselves, then we can start a different discussion and i'd be happy to participate

 

... Any how as you said earlier this is beside the point though it seems the discussion has returned here.

 

Point:

First its alright doesn't mean just do it, its more like if others do it, your ok with it -- and this is why a theological problem may exists here. I say may, because interpretation is as varied as there are opinions .. but this is point of reasoning.

 

wrt. 7 year olds knowing gay exists, the 7 year old i've seen use the term "its so gay" to describe something as being lame, and throw it left and right at their arch 7 year old enemies..

 

I don't entertain the idea that they understand what this means, nor do i think that a fairy tale will tell them any more than changing the names of the protagonist/antagonist(s) -- so they will probably still call each other gay when they wanna throw a verbal jab.

 

Anyhow, if we take this as an experiment, with the hypothesis that providing information about being gay increases the chances of people becoming gay...

 

I know you can see my point .. It wouldnt hold, for societies where such practices are dutifully suppressed we still see gay women and men - and if we had the capacity to collect real data on it, i dont think the rates would be different to society which are open about it, only the peoples life experiences would differ.. in fact as another digression a friend of mine lived in latin america for a year, a catholic archetype macho culture were the taboo as xiin would put it is strongly maintained. She was shocked that men would knife each other for being called gay, but were happy to keep a lover along side their wife.... i guess it takes all sorts to make the world go around..

 

Also i dont think the point of taboo here extends to the other relationship types you have mentioned. These relationship types are nurtured - with this point, i think we (I) get woolly, there is not as far i understand a brain function that says you will be attracted to woman A and not B (not the form of type but in person), so the actions that lead to incest are nurtured - i.e. a person involved in such action will not be exclusive to their partner, but would also be ok with a choice involving anyone of the same gender as their partner. This is not the case form homosexuality, i.e. there is a strong gender exclusivity, as implied in the title

 

btw where i grew up it was cool to beat up the gay person not be their friend.. so any change is a good change for the lives of the people that suffer.

 

anyhow i think indoctrination is too vague a concept, as i said such an action can at best make it ultimately acceptable for people to be gay, not make people gay. Whether this is a problem depends on how you see your role in determining how other people live their lives, since ultimately you or i will not judge ...

 

 

Che,

saxiib you are right, from next week i'll be all hang them high .. for every thing

[xiinfaniin]

NOGNE,

 

There you gave a lengthy speech with little or no substance! You went off on a tangent, rambled aimlessly and predictably made little or no sense at all. The issue before you is very simple and you need to take a stance:

1- Is it appropriate to introduce a 5-year child to a gay literature?

 

Whether the fact Muslims don’t necessarily need to rationalize divinely imposed orders contradicts with my claim of homosexuality being a deviation from the norm is beside the point adeer ( I can start you by pointing out that man is born in a state of fitrah, purity, and what comes after birth is due to external influences, and not necessarily an innate quality).

 

The point I am trying to make though (and most people understood it and actually took a stance on it) is exposing young children to such a gay suggestive contents is wrong and harmful. Tolerance has nothing to do with it. This is a badly chosen matter and it can actually be objected on many grounds. Hating, or badmouthing as you try to disguise it in your creative writing, is not my forte! I don’t subscribe to the notion that sins deaden hearts eternally or prevent moral reform. In the other words there is always a hope that sinners could recover from their wicked ways and find guidance hence there’s no point in hating a potential Muslim from my perspective. But it seems that you are utterly confused and failed to distinguish between protesting against a particular wrongdoing and expressing repulsiveness about it AND hating certain group or category of sinners. The two are different yaa Xaaji!

 

CG, this is tiring now wallaahi. Yours is no longer intelligible adeer. In case you missed the point again, my analogy was to exemplify the vulnerability of children!