Dear reader,

Let’s be honest. Whether you are a religious person, someone raised in a conservative culture, or even an ex-Muslim, many of us still carry deep-seated biases against homosexuality. This is not always our fault. These ideas were planted in us since childhood, through repetition and fear. And leaving a religion or rethinking a belief system does not automatically erase those inner voices. It takes conscious effort and a willingness to confront them.

This article invites you to take that step. If you give it a fair chance, it might leave you with a sense of clarity, strength, and peace you did not expect. Because knowledge is power, and that power can help free you from prejudices you never truly chose in the first place.

Table of Contents:

Love as Evidence: Why Homosexuality Is a Natural Human Expression

Homosexuality is often reduced to a mere sexual act in religious discourse. But in truth, it is deeply rooted in the human experience of love, emotional intimacy, companionship, and connection between individuals of the same sex. Sexual expression is just one aspect of that broader relationship, not the entire picture.

Consider the following:

• Homosexual individuals fall in love just like heterosexual individuals do.

• They dream about their partners, long for emotional closeness, and often build lives together. It is about forming families. 

• Living with a same-sex partner can offer emotional fulfilment, comfort, and shared joy.

• Their intimate relationships are filled with affection, trust, and mutual care.

In light of this, love provides strong evidence that homosexuality is not unnatural. If we deny the naturalness of homosexuality, we must first ignore the very presence of love in these relationships. And that would be a serious moral and emotional oversight.

Answering the Objection: “If Love is Love, Then Why Not Drink Toilet Water?”

Unfortunately, homophobic people dismiss the slogan “love is love” by offering what they believe is a clever rebuttal. They object: 

“If all love is equal, then all water is equal too, so why not drink toilet water?”

While it might sound provocative, this comparison falls apart upon closer inspection. Here's why:

Firstly, there is no emotional bond, attraction, or relationship involved with toilet water. It offers neither love nor comfort, nor does it form part of anyone’s dreams or sense of identity. In contrast, same-sex love is about two humans forming a deeply emotional and committed bond, and not just about physical needs.

Secondly, toilet water is meant to carry waste, not to nourish. It's an unsafe and undesirable source of water, while clean drinking water fulfills a vital human need in a safe, acceptable manner. This analogy fails because it ignores context and purpose. In the same way, love between consenting adults (heterosexual or homosexual) serves a deeply personal, emotional, and social purpose.

Thirdly, nobody dreams about or gains happiness from toilet water. But people, both gay and straight, find meaning, comfort, and lifelong companionship in their relationships. These connections are fundamental to emotional health and well-being, which is why they are recognised and celebrated in healthy societies.

This analogy confuses two completely different categories: acts rooted in emotional love and consent, versus an absurd and irrelevant comparison with waste material. It trivialises love, something that should be understood with empathy and reason, not dismissed with faulty comparisons.

Answering the Objection: “But Paedophiles Also Feel Attraction, Isn’t That Also Natural?”

This is a common and emotionally charged objection, often made to discredit homosexuality by comparing it with paedophilia. To respond fairly and logically, we must understand two key points:

• Homosexuality is "natural".
• And homosexuality is also within the boundaries of "morality". 

1. Nature Is Not Morality:

Nature is not perfect. It does not follow human ethics. Animals kill, steal, and force themselves on others. Humans may also show desire to kill, steal, and force themselves upon others for personal benefits, however, human have intellect, empathy, and the ability to set moral boundaries.

Just because a desire is “natural” does not mean it is acceptable in a civilized moral society. For example:

• Some people naturally feel anger, but society expects them not to act violently.

• Some people may have unhealthy attractions (like for children), but they are expected to control and seek help for them.

So, even if a desire arises from nature, it must be filtered through ethics, consent, and harm prevention.

Heterosexual love is natural, but still it is demanded that this love should also fall within the boundaries of morality. A strong or a rich man is not allowed to forcefully take a woman without her consent, claiming that his love for her is natural. 

2. The Moral Line: Consent and Harm:

Here lies the core difference:

• Homosexuality involves two consenting adults, with mutual love, emotional connection, and no harm.

• Paedophilia involves a power imbalance, lack of informed consent, and clear psychological and physical harm to children.

Consent is what separates moral intimacy from exploitation.

Laws and ethics exist to protect the vulnerable, especially children who cannot give informed consent. Comparing this to a consensual adult relationship is not just misleading, it is morally wrong.

3. Homosexuality Is About Love, Not Predation:

Homosexual people form families, dream of companionship, and experience emotional and sexual love, just like heterosexual people.

Paedophilia, on the other hand, is not about love, but about predatory control. A child is not an equal partner; they are vulnerable, and any sexual involvement with them causes deep trauma.

The attempt to compare the two erases the fundamental difference between equal, adult relationships and harmful exploitation.

Conclusion:

• Nature may give rise to many instincts, some beautiful, some dangerous.

• Society encourages self-control, therapy, and ethical behaviour, especially when an instinct can harm others.

• Homosexuality, when based on adult consent, love, and mutual respect, causes no harm and deserves protection.

• Paedophilia, which involves exploitation and harm, must be condemned and prevented.

• A heterosexual love, which does not follow mutual respect and causes harm to a woman, is also as bad as paedophilia. 

Equating the two is not only unfair, but it’s deeply unjust to both LGBTQ individuals and child protection efforts.

Answering the Objection: Homosexuality is Unnatural while it is Disgusting

One common mistake among religious individuals is the belief that their God/Allah is PERFECT, and He created a 100% perfect NATURE too. As a result, they find it inconceivable that more than two genders can exist in nature since God supposedly created only two genders.

However:

• Nature is indifferent to the concerns of humans and does not guarantee a state of absolute 100% perfection tailored specifically for them.

• In order to survive, we must adapt and make compromises in accordance with nature, even if we find them imperfect, distasteful, or encompassing certain risks.

The male and female genitalia harbor numerous bacteria and can carry diseases, unlike other parts of the body's skin. They may also lack a pleasant fragrance, often emanating an unpleasant odor due to their dual function for waste elimination. One might question why nature didn't design separate organs for sexual activity that was free from bacteria, and diseases, and possessed a pleasant scent like flowers.

However, nature does not prioritize absolute perfection for human satisfaction. As humans, we must compromise and accept some level of disgust and risks for the sake of experiencing greater pleasure. The same is true about oral sex (i.e. kissing the vagina or penis) and kissing on the mouth despite the saliva being disgusting and also having bacteria.

In conclusion:

• Instead of criminalizing sex, the emphasis should be on promoting safe sexual practices and raising awareness about preventive measures.

• And homophobes cannot declare homosexuality to be a "crime" and "unnatural" on the basis of their argument of it being "more" disgusting and "more" dangerous than hetero sex-relationship.

• If they are unable to establish the absolute perfection of nature, their argument against homosexuality also loses its validity.

Answering the Objection: "Homosexuality is not natural, but it only develops due to environmental brainwashing."

This is a common claim made by homophobes, who argue that homosexuality is not inborn but the result of external influence or societal corruption.

But if that were true, then explain this:

Why hasn’t homosexuality disappeared from religious societies, where:

• Every effort is made to brainwash people against homosexuality from childhood,

• People are threatened with brutal physical punishments,

In these deeply conservative environments, if homosexuality were purely the result of "brainwashing," then the opposite should be happening, and everyone should be heterosexual.

But reality proves otherwise.

It proves that homosexuality is natural.

It’s not created by TV shows, the internet, or Western culture.

It’s something inherent, something that survives even in the most hostile environments.

If anything, the real "brainwashing" is being done by those who try to erase what is natural, not those who try to accept it.

Answering the Objection: Homosexuality is unnatural because it increases the risk of STDs (sexually transmitted diseases).

Our Response: 

This argument is fundamentally flawed. The presence of disease does not determine whether something is natural or unnatural.

Let’s ask a simple question: If two men are tested and confirmed to be completely free of any sexually transmitted infections, would you then consider their relationship “natural” and allow them to marry?

Of course you will not allow it, because the objection is not really about health. It's about using fear to disguise your prejudice.

Furthermore:

• STDs can spread through heterosexual contact as well.

• Diseases like HIV, HPV, gonorrhea, chlamydia, and herpes exist among heterosexuals worldwide.

• Heterosexual marriages are not considered unnatural just because they carry a medical risk.

So if disease alone makes a relationship “unnatural,” then we would also have to label heterosexuality the same way, and that’s clearly absurd.

The truth is:

• Human sexuality, whether heterosexual or homosexual, carries certain health risks, just like eating food, driving cars, or giving birth.

• That’s why we have medicine, protection, education, and healthcare to manage those risks.

But you don’t ban or criminalize something just because it carries risk. You educate, support, and treat, and not shame and outlaw.

Answering the Objection: Homosexuality is unnatural because it raises the risk of HIV

This argument is deeply flawed and based on a misunderstanding of both nature and disease.

Let’s begin with a simple question: If scientists discovered a complete cure for HIV tomorrow, would you then accept homosexuality as natural?

Most likely, those who make this objection would still reject it, which proves that their real issue is not disease, but prejudice.

Diseases do not define what’s Natural, because:

• Nature is not perfectly designed for us. Many natural things bring risks, childbirth, sunlight, raw food, or even drinking water in excess can be harmful.

• All forms of sex, whether heterosexual or homosexual, carry some risk of disease transmission.

• The presence of a risk does not make something unnatural or immoral. It just means we must act responsibly and use protection or seek medical help when needed.

Crime and Disease Are Not the Same:

Religious people often confuse a health risk with a moral or legal crime.

• A disease is not a sin.

• A disease is not a crime.

• We treat and cure diseases, we don’t jail or punish people for catching them.

So if someone contracts HIV or another STD, that is a medical issue, not a reason to criminalize their identity or love.

Moreover, HIV is not exclusive to homosexuality. 

• HIV can spread through vaginal intercourse too. So should we then consider that a “lesser crime”?

• It can also spread through blood transfusions, shared needles, and childbirth. So are those criminal acts?

The truth is, HIV has more to do with unprotected sex and lack of education, not with the gender of the partners involved.

Criminalizing Love won’t stop disease, but it spreads it:

• In fact, when you criminalize homosexuality, people are forced into hiding.

• They don’t seek testing, they can’t get treatment, and the disease spreads even more, especially in conservative countries.

Science Has Already Made Huge Progress:

Today, HIV is no longer a death sentence:

• People with HIV can live long, healthy lives on medication.

• In many ways, it’s now easier to manage than diabetes.

So should we criminalize sugar too, because it causes diabetes?

Of course not. That would be absurd, just like criminalizing homosexuality because of a disease that can be treated.

If you truly care about health, the solution is not punishment, but it’s:

• Education

• Healthcare

• Compassion

• And treating people with dignity

Homosexuality is not a disease. HIV is. And diseases should be fought with medicine, and not with moral panic.

• Note: Homosexuals don't transmit HIV to children, but heterosexuals do

Moreover:

• HIV now infects more heterosexual people than gay or bisexual men – 

_{[Summary: In 2022, 49% of new diagnoses in England are among straight people (with an almost even split between men and women), compared with 45% for gay and bisexual men.  This is the first time in a decade that new diagnoses among heterosexuals are higher, marking a clear change in the shape of the domestic HIV epidemic. Thankfully, this isn’t about a huge spike in HIV diagnoses among heterosexuals. Instead, it’s primarily the result of a sharp, sustained drop in diagnoses among gay and bisexual men with a 71% fall since 2014. ]}

Answering the Objection: The shape of reproductive organs is a witness that homosexuality is unnatural

And we answer that the reproductive organs of animals also show they are not perfect for homosexuality, but still homosexuality is natural among them. And they are involved in homosexual activities without any brainwashing from the atheists. If any, then GOD has to be blamed for misguiding them towards the crime of homosexuality. 

Similarly, the shape of the reproductive organs of human beings is also not natural for masturbation. Still, Islam itself allows the partners to masturbate each other too. All Muslims agree upon it that partners could masturbate each other (link).

All Muslims had to agree upon it, while Muhammad himself used to fondle his wives during their menses (Sahih Bukhari, Hadith 302).

So, when a Muslim husband is masturbated by his wife, or by his slave girl, then how Muslims are going to fit such masturbation in the box of "shape of reproductive organs and nature"? 

The problem is that Islamists believe not only their Allah to be 100% perfect, but they also believe that the "system of Allah" is also an "intelligent and 100% perfect system", and free of any mistake. While the truth is this, there exists no such perfect system in nature. According to the theory of evolution, the survival of the fittest is possible, but it does not make them 100% mistake-free and they could have thousands of problems and irregularities present in their bodies. 

Thus, the human body is also not perfect, and it could have many irregularities. Especially, human hormones and tendencies are delicate, and millions of humans are witness to their natural homosexual tendencies. 

Answering the Objection: Homosexuality should be banned because it will lead to human extinction

This argument is based on a misunderstanding of both population dynamics and human sexuality.

Let’s begin with a simple fact: Not all people are homosexual. In every society, there are still heterosexuals, bisexuals, and people who choose to have children, regardless of their sexual orientation. Homosexuality doesn’t eliminate the ability or desire to reproduce, but it only reflects the diversity of human relationships.

Take the case of Ancient Rome, where male homosexual relationships, especially between older and younger men, were widespread and even socially accepted in many eras.

Despite this, the Roman population thrived for centuries. There was never a risk of extinction due to homosexuality.

Similarly, in China, homosexuality was openly practiced and accepted throughout much of its thousands-year-long history. (See: Wikipedia: Homosexuality in China). Again, the human population continued to grow, not decline.

Moreover, by the same logic, should we criminalize masturbation too? Over 99% of men, including religious ones, masturbate at some point in their lives. It doesn’t lead to children, but we don’t claim that masturbation causes human extinction. So why use this argument only against homosexuality?

Moreover, gay and lesbian couples also raise children:

• Lesbian couples can have children through artificial insemination, IVF, or co-parenting with a male donor.

• Gay couples can and often do adopt or raise children, giving homes to those in need.

The desire to raise children is not dependent on being heterosexual, but it’s dependent on life goals, values, and circumstances.

Moreover, childbearing trends hav changed, not because of LGBTQ+ people, but due to other factors. In ancient societies, people had large families because:

• Children were needed for labor

• There was no social security

• High child mortality rates required having many children

Today, in many advanced societies:

• Governments provide support for the elderly

• Life is expensive

• Many straight couples choose not to have children by choice

So even among heterosexuals, birth rates have declined, not because of homosexuality, but because of modern lifestyle changes.

Answering the Objection: Scientists have not found a specific gene for homosexuality

First, it’s important to note that scientists have not found a single "gene" for heterosexuality either. There is no specific “straight gene”, just as there is no specific gene for homosexuality, or for other complex human behaviors like love, preference, or desire.

Similarly, for those men who ask their wives to masturbate them, then science has also not discovered a "masturbation gene." And yet, the behavior exists and is common.

In fact, scientists have observed homosexual behavior in hundreds of animal species, and they haven’t found a separate gene for homosexuality in animals either. But that doesn’t mean the behavior is unnatural.

Human behaviors, including sexual orientation, arise from a complex interplay of genetics, hormones, brain structure, and environment. Most traits and preferences are polygenic, meaning they are influenced by many genes working together, rather than one single “on/off” switch gene.

For example:

• There is no separate gene that makes a boy like fair-skinned girls versus dark-skinned girls.

• There is no gene for liking slim partners over heavier ones.

• Some men are attracted to older women, others to younger, again, not because of one specific gene, but because of how their genetic makeup, experiences, and brain chemistry interact.

Sexual orientation works in the same way, as it is not binary or dictated by a single gene.

The same set of genes can express themselves differently in different individuals. Just like eye color or height is influenced by multiple genes and their expression, sexual orientation is a complex result of genetic tendencies, hormonal influences in the womb, early development, and environmental factors.

Answering the Objection: Homosexuals checking out straight people will make them uncomfortable

We understand this concern. it’s a genuine challenge that society must address. But it's important to recognize that we live in an imperfect world, where no social interaction is completely free of discomfort. To live together with respect and dignity, we all have to navigate complexities and sometimes make compromises.

This concern isn’t unique to LGBTQ+ individuals. A similar issue already exists in heterosexual dynamics:

• What happens when a straight man shows interest in a woman who doesn’t feel the same way?

• Sadly, this happens all the time, and in some cases, it crosses boundaries and causes discomfort, or worse.

• But do we respond by saying that all men should be excluded from spaces shared with women?

• Do we criminalize all expressions of attraction just because some people behave inappropriately?

Of course not.

Instead, we educate people about respect, boundaries, and consent, and we continue to share spaces, work together, and live as a society.

The key is mutual respect, not fear:

• LGBTQ+ people are not predators, but they’re human beings, just like anyone else.

• Having someone attracted to you does not mean they will act on that attraction inappropriately.

• The same way most straight men know how to behave around women, most LGBTQ+ individuals know how to behave respectfully around straight people.

There is no 100% perfect solution, not for straight people, not for gay people, not for anyone.

But we find balance through:

• Compromise

• Mutual understanding

• Clear boundaries

• And a shared sense of humanity

This is how societies evolve and coexist, and not through fear or exclusion, but through empathy and cooperation.

External Links:

WikiIslam: Qur'an, Hadith and Scholars: Homosexuality

Image Format:

• If love is love, then why don't you drink Toilet Water?

• Objection: Homosexuality brings more risks for STDs (Sexually Transmitted Diseases)