LGBT – Gay Vocabulary in English

The main issue about the arguments that were brought up is that they are (logical) fallacies. A fallacy is a statement or an argument based on a false or invalid inference (according to http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fallacy ). In order to make this clear, let us analyze the statements made (or words used) so far.

“Allah (God) […]”. Here is the first fallacy: appeal to faith (http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/31-appeal-to-faith). Faith, by definition, relies on a belief that does not rest on logic or evidence. This is why such argument is not valid. Do not misunderstand me, though: you should be (because it is a fundamental human right) completely free to hold any kind of beliefs you wish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion), but the same should also be true for every one else (and they may not hold the same beliefs you do). Besides, the concept of freedom of belief also includes the freedom to change religions or simply not to follow any religions (just so you know, not following a religion does not imply not holding beliefs or moral values). Unfortunately, some religions (and countries where these religions are predominant) do not allow this freedom, but it is something worth fighting for.

“[…] the humans as two different kinds (male & female), so the males just love females”. Moving on to the second fallacy: non sequitur (http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/137-non-sequitur). The fact that humans are born as either men or women does not imply that they could not love (or simply have sex with) people of the same gender. Even if you could find a passage of the Quran (from your arguments, I presume you are Muslim) that explicitly said what you stated, that still would not be a valid argument (since it would be an appeal to faith).

“Any words other than this is considered abnormal […]”. Considering the definitions of abnormal as “Not typical, usual, or regular; not normal; deviant” (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/abnormal) and “natural” as “usual or expected” (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/natural), this is our third fallacy: appeal to nature (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature , http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/37-appeal-to-nature). The fact that non-heterosexual relationships are not usual (because the majority of people is heterosexual) is not enough to imply that such relationships should be unacceptable. On a side note, you (as a Muslim) are also a part of a minority (considering the whole world), since there is a majority (31.5%) of Christians (http://www.pewforum.org/2012/12/18/global-religious-landscape-exec/).

“[…] any person practicing homosexuality is suffering congenital problem”. I have not detected any fallacy here, but it is still worth discussing (because it is a quite strong statement, and you did not provide evidences to support it).

As for the congenital (present from birth) part, there are indeed studies to support it (some news are in http://scitechdaily.com/homosexuality-might-develop-in-the-womb-due-to-epigenetic-changes/ ; the full article is in http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/668167 ). However, from legal and social standpoints, the innateness of sexual orientation is simply not relevant (http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k78405&pageid=icb.page414413).

As for the “problem” part, it is necessary to define what you meant by “problem”. Assuming you used “problem” as a synonym for “drawback” (disadvantage), I would partially agree (biologically speaking) with you. Since homosexual individuals would not reproduce as easily as heterosexuals (but it is still possible by means such as artificial insemination), it is expected that the former would have lower Darwinian fitness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitness_(biology)). Nevertheless, the story is a bit different when it comes to bisexuals: not only they are able to reproduce in the same way heterosexuals do, but also are able to make strong social bonds with individuals of the same gender, thus raising their chances of surviving and reproducing (a part of this discussion – regarding the case of animals – is here: http://www.yalescientific.org/2012/03/do-animals-exhibit-homosexuality/).

On the other hand, if you used “problem” as a synonym for “disease” (or illness), there is a professional consensus (among psychiatrists) that homosexuality represents a variation of human sexuality without any intrinsically harmful effect on the health of those concerned or those
close to them (reference: the report ” ‘cures’ for an illness that does not exist”, available on http://www.paho.org/hq/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_view&gid=17703&Itemid=2057 and the website http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/faculty_sites/rainbow/html/facts_mental_health.html).

“All religions prohibit sodomy”. This is another appeal to faith, but let us go further. In first place (according to http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sodomy), sodomy means “anal or oral copulation with a member of the same or opposite sex” (which is something broader than homosexualism alone, but let us restrict to it). Not all religions are against it. Some support it (such as Wicca, Satanism and Unitarian Universalism), whereas some others have no official (or neutral) position (such as Hinduism or Tibetan Buddhism) on this issue (http://www.pewforum.org/2012/12/07/religious-groups-official-positions-on-same-sex-marriage/, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_and_homosexuality).
Another reason why the existence (or inexistence) of religions that support it is not important is that many people are free to live according to their beliefs or needs, even creating religions which suit them (if they want so). An emblematic example of this is the secession of the English Church from Rome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_England#Secession_from_Rome). As I said before (just as a reminder), not following any religion should also be an option (considering the freedom of belief).

Summing up, it would be a good idea to check the soundness and scope of your arguments. It also a good practice to provide reliable references (peer-reviewed articles published on high impact factor journals are best) and evidences to support your claims (especially when they are general). Lastly, you should try to make your ideas as clear as possible (avoiding ambiguous terms, for example).