"Intercourse exists for procreation. That is to say it came into being for that purpose alone. The pleasurable component of sex, the natural attraction between man and woman and the instinctual drive to engage in sexual activity, are to ensure the continuing cycle of life. Sexual attraction to other species of animals, prepubescent children and the same sex are obvious deviations from the natural order of things where sex exists within a framework of the lifecycle." Sayyid Sajjad Hussain Naqvi

"Islam is not about false human perceptions of law or morality. It is about living by the natural law -- where morality means abiding by the natural order of things -- maintaining the balance." Sayyid Sajjad Hussain Naqvi

We have the misfortune of living in a technocratic industrial society, one which, in every facet of our lives, alienates us from our true nature as human animals. It seems that almost every instinct with which humans were once fully in touch has escaped us. From the cooked meat and refined foods we eat to the latest clothing fashions to which many fall prey, our species has been all but robbed of our natural instincts. Expectedly, sexuality has been marred by our fall from Nature. Prostitution, date-rape, and pornography are commonplace in this society; each seems to be not only a cause but a result of our collective moral degeneration.

This article is not intended to single out homosexuality as somehow worse than the destructive behaviors of objectification and imbalance in which many heterosexuals engage. Rather, homosexuality is being discussed by itself here because it seems to be the subject of much controversy, whereas other destructive forms of sexuality are not nearly as controversial.  

Point: Homosexuality is natural.

Counterpoint: In Nature, there is no biological niche for homosexuality. It runs counter to all principles of biology and physiology. Sex originally came into existence for the purpose of procreation, and the pleasurable component of sex exists merely to ensure that animals (humans included) have intercourse and procreate the species. Hence, sexual activity that exists outside the realm of procreation-that is, sex with animals, sex with prepubescent children, sex with inanimate objects, and sex with someone of one's own sex-are all unnatural. While two men may care for each other, it would be unnatural for either of them to feel a sexual attraction for the other: homosexuals claim that they feel an attraction to others of the same sex, but this does not change the fact that they are biologically not capable of having natural intercourse with that individual. In other words, for those who choose a homosexual lifestyle, the mind is always out of balance with the body. Intuitively speaking, homosexual intercourse is clearly forced. Unlike the vagina, the anus is not self-lubricating, so an artificial lubricant must be used. The vagina is self-cleansing, while the anus is a filthy wasteland of bacteria. The anus exists to excrete fecal matter from the body; it should be apparent to any reasonable thinker that the anus ought not be used as a receptacle for a penis. Furthermore, one could only wonder why the rate of sexually-transmitted diseases among those who engage in homosexual sex is many times greater than among those who engage in natural sex.

Put quite simply, sexual attraction to something or someone with which or with whom one cannot reproduce is not natural, balanced or healthy.

Point: That is merely your definition of "natural."

Counterpoint: That is a flawed argument. Certain things are objectively true. Muslims, Native cultures, deep ecologists, and any other individuals who try to live with Nature do not create the rules. We merely observe them. It is appealing to many persons to make the claim that "the Laws of Nature are subjective," because this allows those persons to partake in any activities they so choose, regardless of the imbalance inherent in such activities. It is the belief of the Taliy'ah al-Mahdi that the first step toward the liberation of the Self, as well as the liberation of all other life on this Earth, is to recognize the immutable Truths of Nature.

Point: I don't care about natural law.

Counterpoint: That is quite unfortunate, but then again, at one point in their lives, most who were not raised in Islam have probably said the same thing. It is understandable why you may not pay much heed to the Way of Nature because you are living in an extremely unnatural setting. In this technocratic industrial society, we are all trained to seek pleasure in the unnatural; we are rarely encouraged to seek out the basic truths of our existence and embrace Nature. In fact, a good example of how this society's hatred of Nature has perverted all of us is human sexuality. This society, like all "advanced" societies, is obsessed with sex, possibly because it is one of the few Natural instincts we have left. While sexuality is Natural and important, it has been skewed and manipulated by television, advertising, and human convention at large. The end result is tragic: for many, pornography represents sexual gratification, date rape is commonplace, and complete and total objectification of one's partner is the dominant mindset, hence "one night stands" or S & M. Other unnatural sexual activities are resultant of our fall from Nature: pedophilia, orgies, homosexual oral sex, and sodomy. It is shocking that the latter three are accepted as normal, but it is understandable that this society, so alienated from our Natural roots, would accept and endorse such activities.

Point: Animals engage in homosexual behavior.

Counterpoint: Humans do not have a monopoly on deviation. Some chimpanzees, for example, eat a small amount of animal flesh despite the fact that they are biological fruitivores. Of course, Nature punishes them; those chimpanzees that eat even a small amount of animal flesh lives substantially shorter lives than their fruit-eating brothers and sisters .

The fact that a few non-human animals might engage in a particular behavior does not make that behavior natural. The few observations of animals engaging in homosexuality have almost exclusively, if not always, taken place in a human-induced setting, such as a zoo. It is not surprising that on rare occasions, animals who have been alienated from Nature would begin to engage in unnatural activities. (See the booklet entitled What is "Abnormal" Sexual Behavior? for more information on this topic. Ordering information is provided at the end of this booklet).

Point: Homosexuality is an adaptive mechanism to overpopulation.

Counterpoint: This would be a very strange way for Nature to deal with overpopulation. A more likely theory is that people would be born sterile or have a decrease in sexual drive. Again, those are both just theories. To believe some unfounded, unproven and illogical theory instead of the obvious biological fact that male and female sexual organs are designed in harmony with each other is preposterous. Furthermore, it would seem that if Nature intended individuals to engage in homosexual intercourse, those individuals would have evolved to possess sexual organs that work in harmony with one another. Instead, homosexual intercourse is necessarily forced, as the anus exists to excrete waste from the body, is not self-lubricating, and anal sex cannot possibly lead to procreation.  

Point: Isn't homosexuality biologically rooted?

Counterpoint: A large body of research suggests that homosexuality is a learned behavior. Evidence for this comes from several sources:

1. No one has found a single genetic, hormonal or chemical difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals (Marmor J, ed., Homosexuals Behavior: A Modern Reappraisal, Basic Books)
2. Those raised in non-religious homes are 4.5 times more likely to choose a homosexual lifestyle than those raised in religious homes (Institute for the Scientific Investigation of Sexuality, What Causes Homosexuality and Can It Be Cured?)
3. A number of homosexuals do change their behavior. If homosexuality were innate, change would not be possible. The rate, according to Stanton and Yarhouse, ranges from 33% to 60%. Most psychologists still believe homosexuality is learned, even those who endorse their behavior (examples include Rado, Bierber, Socarides, Kinsey, Hooker, Szaz, Marmor and Masters and Johnson).

It is interesting, almost humorous, that researchers are constantly attempting to find a "gene" for homosexuality. We wish them luck, but basic principles of biology and reason counter any real possibility that such a gene could exist; this is probably why they have yet to "discover" this gene. It seems that, almost without fail, those who attempt to discover this gene (which almost surely does not exist) are homosexuals themselves, and are thus quite biased in their inquiries. It also seems that, without fail, their studies are inherently flawed by design; the Kinsey studies were a good example of this. In any event, we believe that any research is inherently unreliable; we prefer to use our intuitions and common sense. Because there is no biological niche for homosexuality, it seems absurd that scientists would waste their time on such frivolous pursuits. In any event, alcoholism is genetic, but few would advocate that those possessing such a gene ought to consume alcohol, as it is an inherently unhealthy and unbalanced behavior.

Point: You are insecure about your own sexuality.

Counterpoint: This argument is often used to silence critics of homosexuality, and indeed, it may be true that people who are truly hateful towards homosexuals have some problems of their own that need to be worked out. Muslims, however, are not homophobic and we do not hate homosexuals. We believe in Nature, we understand the basic Natural fact that the only form of sexual behavior that is Natural is consensual intercourse between a mentally and physically mature female and male. It should be clear to those reading these arguments that we are not "homophobic," but rather we offer rational and logical objections to sexual deviancy.

Point: I don't personally approve of homosexual practices, but aren't homosexuals entitled to the same civil rights as all other people?

Counterpoint: Homosexuals already have the same rights as other people. They want special privileges. We are not advocating that those engaging in homosexual behavior should be denied basic rights, such as the right to vote or the right not to be assaulted. We condemn anyone who would support "gay-bashing." Our movement is one of liberation and harmony; we believe in reaching out to those who, in one way or another, have chosen a self-destructive way of life. Our argument is that no person should be granted special privileges merely due a choice that he or she has made.

It seems wrong to discriminate against homosexuals, say in the workplace, if that person's sexual choices do not affect his or her ability to perform that job. If those choices did affect one's ability to perform a job (for example, if an openly gay individual wanted to teach a Sunday School class at a Catholic church) it would be just as absurd to legally guarantee him a right to teach that Sunday School class as it would be to ban discrimination against those who enjoy wearing jeans and a T-shirt, but who still want to apply for a job as a banker.

It is crucial to understand that homosexuality is freely chosen, it is not innate. If we adopt the principle that individuals should be granted privileges outside the norm merely due to choices that they make, the ramifications would be ridiculous. We would be obliged to ban discrimination against anyone who engaged in any odd sexual practice (for example, those who enjoy public masturbation, having sex with animals, humping trees, etc). This is antithetical to the premise behind civil rights, which is that individuals should not be discriminated against on the basis of inborn traits such as sex or race.

Point: But homosexuals aren't looking for special privileges. They want protection and tolerance.

Counterpoint: If you want to create a distinction in the law, you are looking for special privileges. Homosexuals will not settle for tolerance; rather, they want their lifestyle to be accepted by society to be equally legitimate to a heterosexual lifestyle. Anyway, this is beside the point, because as we have already addressed, it is morally wrong to tolerate the unnatural. Homosexuals want public endorsement. For example the Gay Teachers Association's bill of rights calls for the affirmation of "the beauty and legitimacy of our lifestyle." Homosexual leaders demand that schools offer sex education courses "to encourage students to explore alternative lifestyles ," that school libraries be stocked with books extolling homosexuals and books that disparage homosexuality be banned, that schools establish homosexual clubs, and recommend counseling services that glorify homosexuality as an equally acceptable alternative to Natural sexuality .

Point: We grant special status to other minorities. Why not to homosexuals?

Counterpoint: Homosexuals enjoy the rights ascribed to all other people, and do not warrant minority status. Homosexuals are not like other minorities. Race, nation of origin and gender are innate, immutable and do not necessarily affect one's lifestyle or moral behavior. Homosexuality, on the other hand, is not an inborn trait. Many civil rights advocacy groups have been outspoken against extra rights for gays. They argue that to extend extra protection to individuals based only on choices that they have made is to undermine the spirit of civil rights: that no one should be denied rights based on inherent traits, such as race or sex.

Point: Shouldn't a person do what he or she wants as long as it takes place in the privacy of a bedroom?

Counterpoint: This argument makes the fatal flaw that plagues our society: it assumes that the private and the public are two entirely separate spheres. Private morality directly affects how one thinks about Natural law and the community as a whole. It is not a coincidence that most Native cultures certainly did not tolerate homosexual behavior, because they saw that as an affront to their balanced way of life. Like the consumption of unhealthy foods, drinking alcohol, watching excessive amounts of television, and leading lives of sloth, homosexuality is just one more deviation from Nature that serves to create a deeply rooted disrespect for Her Laws.

Point: Doesn't the U.S. Constitution protect homosexual's rights to privacy?

Counterpoint: "To hold that the act of homosexuality is somehow protected as a fundamental right would be to cast aside millennia of moral teaching," wrote former Chief Justice Warren Berger. The Supreme Court ruled in 1986 in Bowers v. Hardwick that the Constitution does not provide a right for homosexuals to engage in sodomy. Twenty-four states still outlaw sodomy, with penalties ranging from minimum fine of $200 to a maximum sentence of 20 years.

Every human right carries with it a responsibility. All rights are balanced by competing rights. No one has the right to inject a harmful drug into his body, because as a society we have decided that the price we pay for such an action more than outweighs the right of the individual.

Point: If 10 percent of the population is homosexual, shouldn't we treat them as simply an "alternative lifestyle?"

Counterpoint: If you repeat a lie often enough, it can take on the force of truth. Alfred Kinsey found that 10 percent of the population were "more or less" exclusively homosexuals for about three years of their lives or less; only about 4 percent were exclusively homosexual for life. Yet many scientists criticize Kinsey's study, noting that his interviews did not represent the mainstream. For example, present and former prison inmates, mostly sex offenders, made up as much as 25 percent of Kinsey's male sample group .

The University of Chicago reported in February 1990 that only 1 percent of the population is homosexual. Less than 1 percent reported having homosexual sex in the last year. A 1989 study in Science magazine said that 1.6 to 2 percent of the population had engaged in male-to-male sexual activities within the previous 12 months.

Point: Homosexuals don't harm anyone else, do they?

Counterpoint: Those who engage in acts against Mother Nature for the sake of unhealthy, self-destructive pleasure are one of the weak links in the chain of the human species. If one link is broken, the chain is broken. If one feels it is acceptable to transgress the Laws of Nature when they do not suit that person's search for pleasure, then exactly where is the consistent ethical stopping point? There is only one; and that is the Laws of Nature; this is the core truth of salvation for the Earth and all life.

Homosexuals represent just 1 to 2 percent of the population, but have 50 percent of the syphilis cases and 60 percent of the AIDS cases. Between one-half and three-fourths of homosexual men have, at one point in their lives, contracted hepatitis B, a rate that is 20 to 50 times greater than among heterosexual males. Amebiasis, shigellosis and giardiasis are so common among homosexuals the doctors call these diseases "gay bowel syndrome."

During the first 10 years that homosexuals' rights laws were in effect in San Francisco, the city's venereal disease rate rose to 22 times the national average. Hepatitis A increased 100 percent; infectious hepatitis B, 300 percent; Amoebic colon infections, 2,500 percent. Approximately 80 percent of the 75,000 people who visited venereal disease clinics in San Francisco in 1979 were homosexuals; 20 percent had rectal gonorrhea. This astounding figure was reported by San Francisco area newspapers.

Although no longer a political goal of most mainstream homosexuals, the 1972 Gay Rights Platform advocated the repeal of all laws governing the age of sexual consent. The platform has not been repealed, and homosexuals are still demanding to adopt children and become foster parents, Boy and Girl Scout leaders, Big Brothers, and the like.

Point: Why shouldn't everyone have the right to choose his or her own lifestyle?

Counterpoint: Just because someone chooses a certain lifestyle does not legitimize their behavior. A Ku Klux Klansman has the right to dress up in a white sheet, but that doesn't mean we extend social approval to his behavior. There are people in our society who find sexual satisfaction from engaging in intercourse with animals-bestiality-and there are others who find pleasure by inflicting pain on others-sadomasochism. Would anyone suggest that these groups deserve special protection because they happen to follow bizarre sexual practices?

Point: It is cruel and dishonest to compare homosexuality to bestiality, and to suggest that all homosexuals molest children. Many homosexuals are decent, loving people who neither commit bestiality and S&M not recruit school children. There is no single homosexual "lifestyle."

Counterpoint: It is true that the homosexual community is diverse. There are sharp disagreements over politics and activist strategy. But the fact is that a balance between human physiology and psychology strongly condemns all forms of homosexual behavior.

Point: Why should the state deny homosexual couples the same rights as married couples?

Counterpoint: This would give legal legitimacy to unnatural sexual behavior and make it seem acceptable. The original intent of marriage was to secure a life-long bond between a male and a female, providing a strong foundation for the family. The traditional family is now under attack, as the average marriage lasts only a handful of years. Currently, nothing prevents homosexuals from maintaining a life-long relationship with each other. The issue of gay marriage is primarily a political tool used by homosexual activist groups to gain social acceptance of their lifestyles. Those who advocate that marriage be returned to its original intent as passed off as "wacko Christians." We claim no man-made religion, we only use common sense.

If I claimed that I had a sexual attraction to a rock or a snake, and demanded that our society recognize the "legitimacy" of my attraction in the form of marriage, you might think I was a bit odd. Certainly, a morally strong society would not recognize the legitimacy of such an attraction in the form of marriage, because that behavior is inherently unnatural. Given that, it seems odd to suggest that we should recognize the legitimacy of homosexual sex through marriage. Every society has a right to resist moral corruption; this means we should only recognize the legitimacy of Natural behavior. Incidentally, this does not mean that we live under a Christian value system, as that value system has unnatural components as well. The Christian ethic is one of domination over or "stewardship" for the Earth and Her animals, plants, rivers and mountains. We, however, are not Christians.

Point: Why shouldn't homosexual couples be allowed to adopt children?

Counterpoint: It seems to me to be a self evident Truth that a child benefits from having both a father and a mother. Nature has never allowed for conception between two individuals of the same sex, and it would thus be unnatural for a gay couple to raise a child. This is the Natural Way, and thus it is the only balanced way. Anyone whose birth parents are divorced can attest to this. We do not doubt that there are many loving homosexual couples out there, and we do not see those individuals as bad people. But at the same time, we strongly feel that a family must be based on the Natural Order. Obviously we would rather have two loving men adopt a child than an abusive, alcoholic male and female couple, as that arrangement would fall outside Natural Law as well. Hence, there may be certain exceptions to disallowing gays to adopt children, but the first priority is to keep the family structure as close to Natural Law as possible.

Point: Gays are being beaten and sometimes killed by homophobes who fear them. Societies must be educated that gays are no different than other people, and gay and lesbian pride marches are one way of doing that. How dare you oppose such efforts?

Counterpoint: Violence against homosexuals is reprehensible. We certainly do not agree with violence toward those choosing a homosexual lifestyle. As we have argued before, each of us, in our personal lives, must make an attempt to live as close to Nature as possible. To this end, all unnatural behavior, not just homosexuality, must not be condoned by society. At the same time, we would support efforts to combat homophobia and gay-bashing, and if a march existed only to combat the hatred of homosexuals, we would not object to that. But if the purpose of the march were to portray unnatural, unbalanced and unhealthy sex as an equally acceptable alternative to Natural sex, we would object.

Point: Our communities let other ethnic groups celebrate their ethnicity in public places. Why shouldn't we let homosexuals celebrate their lifestyles in public places?

Counterpoint: Communities do not let prostitutes, pedophiles, voyeurs, adulterers, and those who sexually prefer animals to publicly celebrate their lifestyles. Why should homosexuals get special privileges? Ethnicity is not freely chosen, homosexuality is.

Point: You're just being homophobic.

Counterpoint: At one time, "homophobia" meant an "unnatural fear." Now homosexuals and their sympathizers in the media use that word to describe anyone who does not endorse homosexuality. It is a "hate crime" speak out against homosexual privileges, or to refuse to endorse homosexual lifestyles. Most persons who endorse homosexuality have never rationally considered if that choice embodies adequate foresight. Political correctness overtakes the minds of many individuals, hampering rational thought. Muslims do not fear homosexuals; they simply disapprove of their behavior.

Point: What do you want homosexuals to do?

Counterpoint: Just as we want alcoholics to get help and overcome their unnatural destructive behavior, we want homosexuals to do the same. Dr. Stanton Jones and Dr. Mark Yarhouse report a success rate of 33 to 60 percent only five years down the line after therapy is concluded. Jones and Yarhouse add that a sincere willingness to change is the greatest factor.

Point: How should homosexuals be treated, in your opinion?

Counterpoint: The only morally adequate response is that which combines compassion with understanding which recognizes, on the one hand, the deeply ingrained psychological dynamics which drive homosexual desire and behavior, and, on the other hand, the great amount of suffering and the destruction of well-being that results from embracing homosexuality. Because of this, public policies must be established by which homosexuality is firmly resisted, while homosexuals themselves must be guaranteed their full rights as citizens, and, more importantly, embraced and offered the hope of the significant healing and restoration available to them. More fundamentally, we must face the futile and disastrous consequences that flow from our hedonic obsessions. Our society's blind amoral pursuit of pleasure at any price, in any form, has perpetuated and exacerbated the psychological, relational, social problems which our Movement seeks to counter. We must respect the Balance of Nature in every facet of our lives. Only then will we truly be free.

"The extreme inequality in our lifestyle: excessive idleness among some, excessive labor among others; the ease with which we arouse and satisfy our appetites and our sensuality; the overly refined foods of the wealthy, which nourish them with irritating juices and overwhelm them with indigestion; the bad food of the poor, who most of the time do not have even that, and who, for want of food, are inclined to stuff their stomachs greedily whenever possible; staying up until all hours, excesses of all kinds, immoderate outbursts of every passion, bouts of fatigue and mental exhaustion; countless sorrows and afflictions which are felt in all levels of society and which perpetually gnaw away at souls: these are the fatal proofs that most of our ills are of our making, and that we could have avoided nearly all of them by preserving the simple, regular and solitary lifestyle prescribed to us by nature."

--French Enlightenment philosopher Jean--Jacques Rousseau (1750)