Bu savol ilova tarjima qilishni talab qilmaydi, shuning uchun men uni tarjima qilmayman.

Does Islam deny equality for “homosexuals”? Does it provide an unfair benefit to “heterosexuals”?

Xo'sh, bu tushuncha — tenglik — deganda nimani nazarda tutayotganingizga qarab, u turlicha tushunilishi mumkin. Bu tushuncha ham noaniq, ham ko'p ma'noli.

Well, it depends on how you conceptualize that elusive, ambiguous concept known as equality.

Shunday o'ylab ko'ring. Islom jinsiy qoniqishni hech qachon taqiqlamaydi. Har bir inson qarshi jins bilan jinsiy qoniqish manbaiga ega, chunki jinsiy zavq oxir-oqibat kam yoki ko'p darajada "mexanik" narsadir. Endi meni eshiting. Agar to'g'ri a'zolar to'g'ri tarzda ishga solinsa, bu ko'pincha kutilgan natijaga olib keladi, sherigining jinsidan qat'i nazar. Demak, har kim qarshi jins bilan turmush qurib, shunday tajriba orttirishga teng qodir. Tenglikning eng yaxshi ko'rinishi. Hech qanday kamsitish yo'q.

Think of it like this. Islam certainly does not prohibit sexual release. Everyone has a possible sexual outlet (with the opposite sex) because, ultimately, sexual pleasure is something “mechanical” to a greater or lesser extent. Now, hear me out. If the right body parts are engaged in the right ways, that more often than not leads to the desired result, regardless of the gender of one’s partner. So, everyone is equally able to marry the opposite sex and experience that. Equality at its finest. No discrimination in sight.

Yo'q, gomoseksualistlar va lesbiyanlar qarama-qarshi jins bilan jinsiy qoniqishga erisha olmaydi. Ular faqat o'z jinsi bilan qoniqishga erisha oladi.

Now, the modern LGBT objection to this is: No, gays and lesbians simply cannot experience sexual fulfillment with the opposite sex. They can only experience it with the same sex.

Your message is "Well, why? This is not the case in principle." Translated into Uzbek: Xo'sh, nega? Bu prinsipial jihatdan unday emas.

Well, why? This is not the case in principle.

Agar bir erkak faqat supermodellar bilan jinsiy qoniqish his qila olishini aytsa-chi? Yoki bir ayol faqat millionerlar bilan jinsiy qoniqish his qila olishini aytsa-chi?

What if a man said he can only experience sexual fulfillment with supermodels? Or a lady said she can only experience sexual fulfillment with millionaires?

Biz o'sha erkak va o'sha ayolning, agar ular umrlari davomida supermodel yoki millioner topmasalar, jinsiy jihatdan asosiy darajada mahrum bo'lgan deb o'ylармидик? Yo'q bo'lsa, nega? Buning sababi ularning jinsiy to'liqlik uchun nima kerakligi haqidagi da'volarini jiddiy qabul qilmaymizmi? Agar qabul qilmasak, nega o'zini gey yoki lesbian deb ataydiganlarning da'volarini jiddiy qabul qilishimiz kerak?

Would we think that that man and that woman were being somehow fundamentally deprived sexually if they lived their whole lives without finding their supermodel(s) or millionaire(s) respectively? If not, why not? Is it because we don’t take their claims for what they need for sexual fulfillment seriously? Well, if we don’t, why should we take the claims of self-labeled gays and lesbians seriously?

Mening misollarimni shunchaki bema'ni deb aytishingiz mumkin. Lekin nega? Aholining taxminan 3 foizi o'zini gey yoki lesbian deb hisoblaydi, lekin nisbatan olganda, faqat supermodel va millionerlar orqali jinsiy qoniqish topishini aytadigan odamlar unchalik ko'p emas, shunday emasmi?

Now, you might say that my examples are preposterous. But why? Is it because about 3% of the population considers itself to be gay/lesbian but, relatively, there just aren’t many people who claim they can only get sexual fulfillment through supermodels and millionaires?

Bu farq ahamiyatsiz emas, degan gapga qo'shilmayman. Ijtimoiy ta'sir va shartlanish odamlarning jinsiy qondirilish uchun nima kerak deb o'ylashiga katta ta'sir qiladi. "Jinsiy qondirilish" aslida nima? Bu o'ylab topilgan tushunchaga o'xshaydi. Odamning nimasi bilan qondirilishini kim haqiqatan bilishi mumkin? Buni oldindan taxmin qilish mumkinmi? Agar jinsiy qondirilish uchun sizga aynan 5 yosh katta, gamburger yoqtiradigan va dengiz bo'yida uzoq sayr qilishni sevadigan avstraliyalik ofis xodimi kerak bo'lsa-chi? Agar hayotingiz davomida buni bilmagan bo'lsangiz-chi? Afsus! Demak, siz hech qachon jinsiy qondirilishni his qilmaysiz! Balki siz o'zingizni qondirilgan deb o'ylarsiz, bechora sodda odam. Lekin yo'q! Siz nimadandir mahrum bo'lyapsiz! Jinsiy qondirilish tushunchasi 20-asr psixologiyasidan kelib chiqqan, butunlay zamonaviy g'oya bo'lib ko'rinadi. Go'yo odamning o'zligi va farovonligi butunlay yulduzlar mos kelib, bu aldamchi nuqtaga yetishiga bog'liqdek. Ommabop psixologiyada sevgi haqidagi tasavvurlar ham bunga aralashadi. Aslida bu hammasi mashhur madaniy qarashlarni, ya'ni qabul qilinadigan jinsiy xatti-harakatlarni oqlash uchun yaratilgan zamonaviy metafizik chala-chulpa fikrlardir. Bu qarashlar esa bir necha yil oldingina voyaga yetgan kishilar o'rtasidagi bir jinsli munosabatlarni ham o'z ichiga oldi.

Well, that’s not a relevant difference. Conditioning and social influence has a major effect on what people believe they need for sexual fulfillment. What is “sexual fulfillment” really? Seems like a made-up concept. Who can really know what he needs to be “sexually fulfilled”? Is it something you can anticipate beforehand? What if what you need to be “sexually fulfilled” is a very specific Australian office worker exactly 5 years your senior who has a predilection for hamburgers and long walks on the beach? What if this and only this is what you need and your whole life, you never knew it. Sorry! Guess you won’t ever experience sexual fulfillment! You might mistakenly assume that you are sexually fulfilled, you poor naive fellow. But nope! You are missing out! The idea of sexual fulfillment seems to be a wholly modern concept coming from 20th century psychology. It is as if one’s entire sense of self and well-being somehow depends on whether the stars align and one reaches this elusory point of fulfillment. In pop psychology, notions of love also come into the mix. In reality, this is all a hodge podge of contemporary metaphysical goop created to justify popular cultural notions of acceptable sexual behavior, which only very recently has come to include same-sex behavior between adults.

Madaniy tuzilmalar orqali shakllantirish juda kuchli. U odamlarning baxtli bo‘lish uchun nimaga muhtoj ekanligi haqidagi kutishlarini belgilab beradi. Yetarli darajada ommaviy axborot vositalari nazorat qilinsa, aholining katta qismini jinsiy qoniqish va to‘liqlik uchun haqiqatan ham supermodellarga muhtoj ekaniga ishontirish mumkin. Aslida, bu qisman pornografiya tufayli allaqachon ma’lum darajada sodir bo‘lgan. Tadqiqotlar shuni ko‘rsatadiki, pornografiya jinsiy to‘liqlik nimadan iborat ekanligi haqidagi kutishlarini butunlay buzib yuborgani sababli, yosh erkaklar “an’anaviy” jinsiy aloqadan kamroq qoniqish oladi. Ularning miyasi onlayn stimulning ta’siri tufayli qayta sozlangan.

Conditioning through these cultural structures is quite powerful. It sets up people’s expectations for what they need to be happy. With enough media control, you could condition a good portion of the population to think that they really do need supermodels to be sexually satisfied and fulfilled. In fact, this is something that has already occurred to some extent due to pornography. Studies show that young men are less satisfied with “conventional” sex because pornography has completely distorted their expectations for what sexual fulfillment consists of. Their brains have been rewired due to the influence of the online stimulus.

Lekin ayollar ham aybdan xoli emas. Ayollarning ideal er haqidagi kutishlari ham Disney multfilmlari va "Sehrli shahzoda" obrazi, jurnallar, romantik romanlar hamda ijtimoiy tarmoqlarning baxtli juftliklarning faqat baxtli lahzalarini tanlab ko'rsatish odati kabi narsalar ta'sirida buzilgan. Bularning barchasi ta'sir qiladi. Tadqiqotlar shuni ko'rsatadiki, bu ayollar tomonidan oilaviy qoniqmaslikni oshirishi mumkin. O'rtacha erkak esa ba'zi ayollar xayolida yaratgan haqiqatga yaqin bo'lmagan, haddan tashqari oshirib yuborilgan romantik orzu standartlariga yetishishda qiynaladi. Natijada ayollar qoniqmagan holda qoladi.

But women are not off the hook. Women’s expectations of an ideal husband have also been distorted by things like Disney movies with Prince Charming, magazines, romance novels, the tendency of social media to selectively highlight happy couples doing happy things, etc. This all has an influence. Studies show how this can increase marital dissatisfaction on the part of women. The average man has a hard time living up to unrealistic, over-inflated standards of a romantic fantasy some women have built up in their imaginations. Women, as a result, are left unfulfilled.

Shunday qilib, aslida, jinsiy qoniqish tobora ko'proq odamlar uchun erishib bo'lmas bo'lib bormoqda (bu o'z jinsidagilar jinsiy qoniqishni faqat ular bera oladi, deb hisoblaydiganlar foizidan ancha ko'p).

So, in reality, sexual fulfillment is elusive for an increasingly large percentage of the population (far greater than the percentage of those who believe that only the same sex can provide them sexual satisfaction).

Biz haqiqatan ham odamlar mahrum qilinmoqda deb hisoblaymizmi? Biz bu odamlarning barchasi zulm yoki tizimli tengsizlik qurbonlari, bu tengsizlik ayrim kishilarga jinsiy qoniqish olish imkonini beradi, boshqalarga esa bermaydi, deb ishonamizmi? Haqiqatan ham kamsitish avj olganmi?

But do we think people are truly being deprived? Do we believe that all these people are victims of oppression or systematic inequality that allows some people to experience sexual fulfillment but not others? Is there really discrimination run amok?

Albatta yo‘q. Odamlarning kutishlarini shunga mos ravishda o‘zgartirish kerak.

Of course not. People’s expectations just need to be adjusted.

Shunday qilib, Islomdagi gomosekssualizm taqiqi kamsitish emas. Islomiy tasavvurga ko'ra, odamlar turli xil shahvatlarni (shahavat) his qilishi mumkin. Ammo ko'p hollarda bu shahvatlarni amalga oshirish mumkin emas yoki amalga oshirilmasligi kerak. Bunga gomoseksual istak, qarindoshlar bilan zino qilish istagi, hayvonlar bilan zino qilish va boshqalar kiradi. Bunday turli-tuman istaklar orasida ma'lum bir istak yoki istaklar to'plamiga alohida e'tibor qaratib, faqat o'sha istak qondirilgandagina kishi "jinsiy qoniqish"ga erisha oladi, deb da'vo qilish g'alati bo'lar edi. Buni kim aytadi?

This is how the Islamic prohibition of same-sex behavior does not discriminate. In the Islamic conception, it is understood that people can experience all kinds of desires (shahawat). But in most cases, these desires cannot or should not be pursued or fulfilled. This includes same-sex desire, incestuous desire, beastiality, etc. In context of such a panoply of diverse desires, it would be strange to fixate on one particular desire or set of desires and claim that one can only be “sexually fulfilled” if that particular desire is met. Who says?

Bu istak supermodellar uchunmi yoki millionerlar uchunmi, bundan qat'i nazar, odam o'sha istakni nazorat qilishi kerak, deb kutiladi. Agar uni qondirish mumkin bo'lsa va qondirish joiz bo'lgan istak bo'lsa, unda mayli. Aks holda, odam shunchaki o'z-o'zini tiyish (nafsni tiyish)ni amalga oshirishi kerak. O'z-o'zini tiyish talabi faqat o'sha istakni qondirish "jinsiy qondirish" va hokazo uchun "asosiy zarurat" ekanligiga kimdir oldindan qaror qilgan bo'lsagina "zulm" va "kamsitish" bo'lib ko'rinadi. Buni kim hal qiladi? Biz ko'rganimizdek, bunday da'vo juda ko'p sabablarga ko'ra, eng yaxshi holda ham, zaif asosga ega.

Whether that desire is for supermodels or millionaires, the expectation is that one must control that desire. If it can be fulfilled and it is a permissible desire to fulfill, then fine. If otherwise, then one must simply exercise self-control. This requirement for self-control is only “oppressive” and “discriminatory” if one has decided a priori that fulfilling said desire is a “fundamental necessity” for “sexual fulfillment,” etc., etc. Who gets to decide that? As we have seen, such a claim is tenuous at best, for numerous reasons.

Yo'q, bu savol tarjima qilinishi kerak bo'lgan matn sifatida qaraladi. Iltimos, tarjima qilinadigan matnni yuboring.

Can those with same-sex desires adjust their expectations and mindset?

Mен aytmoqchi bo‘lganim shu: gomoseksual istaklarga ega bo‘lganlar, faqat bir jinsdagi inson bilan yaqinlik qilish orqali "jinsiy qondirish"ga erishish mumkin, degan taxminni tark eta oladimi? Bu qiyin bo‘lishi mumkin, lekin imkonsiz emas. Bir jinsga bo‘lgan tortishishlar har doim ham yo‘q qilinishi mumkin bo‘lmasligi ham mumkin, lekin mening gapim bu emas. Mening gapim shuki, Allohning shunday dunyo yaratganini o‘ylamaslik, unda aholining bir qismi "jinsiy qondirish" deb ataladigan bu alohida, hayotni boyituvchi, hayotni o‘zgartiruvchi, mast qiluvchi holatga erishishdan batamom mahrum bo‘lgan, iymon uchun ehtimol sog‘lomroqdir. Agar shunday fikrlasangiz, Xudoni adolatsiz yoki Islomni kamsituvchi emas deb tasavvur qilish juda qiyin bo‘ladi. Hammasi jinsiy qondirish qanday ta'riflanishi va chegaralanishiga borib taqaladi.

What I mean by this is, can those with same-sex desires get rid of the expectation that they can only experience “sexual fulfillment” by being intimate with someone of the same sex? It might be difficult, but it is not impossible. The same-sex attractions might not always be something that can be eliminated — but that’s not my point. My point is, it is probably more healthy in terms of one’s iman not to think that Allah has created a world where a segment of the population is categorically barred from attaining this special, life-enriching, life-changing, euphoric state of “sexual fulfillment.” If you do think in those terms, then it becomes very difficult not to see God as unjust or Islam as not discriminatory. It all goes back to how sexual fulfillment is defined and delineated.

Oxir-oqibat, butun umr davomida shakllangan tarbiyani yengish qiyin ish. Ammo bunga yordam beradigan manbalar bor. Biroq, so'nggi hisobda, Islom ma'lum jinsiy xatti-harakatlarni taqiqlash orqali odamlarni tizimli ravishda zulm qilmaydi. LGBT ommalashtirilishi esa odamlarni o'zini to'liq his qilish uchun bir jinsli, o'ziga zarar beradigan jinsiy xatti-harakatlarga kirishishi kerak, deb ishontirish va his qildirish orqali zulm qilmoqda.

Ultimately, a lifetime of conditioning is a difficult thing to counteract. But there are resources to help. At the end of the day, however, Islam is not systematically oppressing people by prohibiting certain sexual behaviors. LGBT normalization is oppressing people by making them believe and feel that they need to engage in self-destructive same-sex behaviors in order to be fulfilled.

Айтиш керакки, АҚШ Олий суди 2016 йилда бир жинсли никоҳ тўғрисидаги қарорида бу фикр йўналишини давом эттирмагани афсусли. Ҳатто Obergefell ишидаги норозилик билдирганлар ҳам бир жинсли никоҳни тақиқлаш дискриминация бўлиши ва шу тариқа Ўн тўртинчи тузатишни бузиши ҳақидаги қарши томоннинг айбловини жиддий шубҳа остига олмадилар. Техник жиҳатдан бу дискриминация, лекин 16 ёшли болаларга ҳайдовчилик гувоҳномасини бериб, 15 ёшлиларга бермайдиган қонунлар ҳам дискриминациядир. Савол шундаки, бу кўплаб ортиқча зарар келтирадиган, одамларни оғир ногиронлик даражасида заифлаштирадиган ва шу билан бирга шахс ҳамда жамият учун умумий катта манфаатга хизмат қилмайдиган дискриминацияниң туриларданми? Жавоб эса зарар ва фойдани қандай тушунишимизга боғлиқ. Аммо жинсийлик ҳақидаги диний қарашларни назарда тутсак, бу масалаларни тушуниш жуда осон бўлиб, савол-жавоб аниқ: "Йўқ".

By the way, it is a real shame that the US Supreme Court did not pursue this line of reasoning in their ruling on same-sex marriage in 2016. Even the dissenters in the Obergefell case did not seriously question the other side’s charge that prohibiting same-sex marriage would be discrimination and, hence, a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Technically it is discrimination, but so are laws that allow 16 year olds to drive but not 15 year olds. The question is, is this the kind of discrimination that causes unnecessary harm and disadvantages people in debilitating ways while not serving an overall greater interest for the individual and society overall? The answer to that obviously depends on how we are conceiving harms and benefits. But, in light of religious understandings of sexuality, it is fairly easy to understand these things in a way that makes the answer to the question a resounding, “No.”