Okay so put it this way, if we remove morals from everything then we are left with a society that is completely lacking in morals. A world in which most people wouldnt want to live in.
Exactly, but morals don't come from religion, for the reason you just gave.
Can you imagine a society in which no one can be trusted, and everyone can steal and kill as much as they like?
That is of course not a society, because no one could trust anyone.
If the idea of a progressive society is one that has no concept of right and wrong based on our biology and instincts and behaviours of other closely related animals then I dont think the world will work.
I am not pleading for a society without any morals.
Some people think that only religious people have morals, that is of course of true.
The difference for me is that instead of blindly following a doctrine laid out by some belief, I have to make my own choices.
That is a lot harder than simply listening what some committee of 'wise men' decided is the absolute truth (for now...).
It makes you think for yourself about things such as abortion, euthanasia, LGBTQ things, you name it.
The concept of right and wrong will always exist because if you think about what it means 'good' or 'bad', the only way to really define it is by saying that what is good is what makes society stronger, and bad is what makes it weaker.
Instincts can be helpful, for instance, we may feel it is wrong to have *** with a sibling of the opposite ***, because it could result in genetically defect children.
Before we knew about genetics, our instincts already protected us from that.
Then it will be okay for children to come into the picture as long as you are only “child attracted” and keep everything “pure” until legal consent.. then whats the harm? No one was hurt? thats where society would be heading.
Consenting adults, that is the lines that is drawn by almost everyone.
It comes from the fact that we know children can be very gullible, not to forget the bodily harm that would be done to an underage boy/girl.
I don't know about the US, but here in Belgium there are like 2 types of age of consent.
One is for youngsters who are starting to experiment, if they have *** with someone a couple of years older than themselves, there will not be a problem, but if say a 30 year old would have *** with such a girl it would be a problem if anyone filed a complaint.
This is done in order to avoid the abuse of power by the older party.
Then there is the age of full consent, from that age onwards, the two can have *** if both parties want it.
Note that there is much discussion in the muslim world as to the age of Aisha, the third wife of muhammad.
According to some she was only nine or ten.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aisha
Rules that women need to cover themselves makes sense in a world where police departments have not been readily established. Its a privilege to be able to wear what we want, afforded to us by a modern society.
That is a bit naïve, as islamic law did have laws for stoning women (but not men, who are allowed to have several wives...) who were performing adultery.
If you can stone a woman for adultery, you can also punish a rapist.
The way that law was done is to blame the women, they get all the responsibility for the bad behaviour of some men.
Men are not seen as having no control they are seen (as they rightly should be) as the person with all the control.
That doesn't make sense.
Think about it, the murderer also has the control over who he/she is going to murder.
Shall we blame the victim then for giving the murderer a reason to murder him/her?
This is simply victim blaming.
As much as we want to believe we are far advanced from this mind set the first thing a woman is asked in the west is “what was you wearing”. This is real life, you attract men, you run the risk that he will use his control and hurt you.
That excuse has not been accepted for a long time.
Though in some cities where there are lots of influences from this type of countries, women do feel threatened.
Not because our laws are the way you describe, but because of other cultures that put all the blame and responsibility on women.
I actually find it strange to see you as a woman accepting all the blame and all the responsibility, and me as a man defending women's rights...
I’m not saying it makes it okay, I was answering the question, the question was why do the LGBTQ face violence in islamic countries. The answer is because all sexual acts that go against the scriptures is met with violence.
It does confirm what I said though, that islam leaves little room for modernisation or reinterpretation.
I have to disagree, authorities making law or going over religious texts is completely over stepping the fundamentals of religion.
I don't know if I understand this sentence correctly.
So in your opinion, anyone who can find some rule in their religious book that is completely against the law (example: if a woman is found to be adulterous she can be stoned"), can just follow those rules of his holy book, and we as a society should accept that?
That is horribly wrong.
In that case there is no longer the rule of law, you live in a theocracy then.
Also I find it offensive when people equate being a homosexual to being a different race typically black, sexuality and ethnicity are different, and it also implies the only homosexuals are caucasian which is exclusive within itself.
There is a logical connection between these things.
You cannot choose your skin colour, but people can discriminate against it.
You cannot choose which gender you are attracted to, but again, people can discriminate against it.
I don't understand the conclusion you draw from it that only caucasians could be homosexuals.
I never said that.
