Questioning the Natural Order: Evaluating Same-Sex Love Without Physical Intimacy

Modern discussions about the essence of love and relationships continue to spark fierce debates. Some argue that even the absence of physical closeness in same-sex relationships does not free them from straying from the natural principles established by nature. Proponents of this perspective contend that such relationships are not merely a choice of an alternative form of love, but rather a form of spiritual and moral transition that can be seen as a violation of the original, prescribed order between a man and a woman.

Fundamentally, this argument is based on the belief that true love must be expressed through natural, mutual, and viable relationships—ones that can generate new life and maintain a natural balance. They claim that same-sex unions, even if devoid of physical intimacy, only mimic a deep connection, lacking the vivifying energy and force needed for the continuation of the species and the restoration of natural harmony. As such, these relationships are interpreted as a departure from the integrity of the soul and a loss of the true meaning of love, which by nature should be inseparably linked with both physical and spiritual complementarity.

In summary, the view presented emphasizes the importance of maintaining the natural order in matters of love and relationships. Regardless of the perceived depth or sincerity of any human connection, certain traditional beliefs instill the idea that deviating from the established order not only leads to the loss of natural wholeness but also potentially weakens the spiritual foundations essential for a full human life.

On what grounds are the views based that same-sex relationships without sex might be considered haram?
Some perspectives argue that same-sex relationships—even when not accompanied by physical sexual acts—may be deemed haram because they represent a deviation from the originally prescribed natural order between a man and a woman. According to these arguments, even in the absence of physical intimacy, such relationships bear the characteristics of spiritual sodomy or “semi-homosexuality,” signifying a transition from a natural, complete marriage to a distorted form of union. This kind of bond is considered as not representing genuine love, lacking the mutual vitality, since it merely imitates the exaltation of love without the involvement of the life force that propels procreation. In this sense, it is seen as an imitation of nature that essentially loses its purpose and function.

Supporting citation(s):
"All the narrated cases relate to the moment of this transition; essentially, they mark the beginning of this shift. They form a man/womanhood and a woman/manhood of semi-homosexuality or semi-sodomy, which, in the absence of physical intimacy, might otherwise be termed spiritual sodomy or spiritual homosexuality. Although I must confess that both these terms are offensive and imprecise to me, I use them solely to designate the phenomena I describe." (source: 290_1448.txt)

"Natural love is unique and unified, indivisible in its life-giving force. That is why homosexuality is surgically removed from love by a cesarean section of perversion: functionally, it is disconnected from the bilateral, life-giving aspect. It imitates the exaltation of love by misusing the life-giving force meant for its natural purpose. It is akin to consuming food without digestion—a misdirection of life’s flow down a false path and an assault on the natural and real by an empty and false sensation." (source: 1257_6281.txt)

Thus, the argument is that any form of same-sex relationship, even without physical contact, is associated with a transitional state that detaches a person from the prescribed natural order, leading to spiritual and moral decay, and is conditionally equated with sodomy.