Happy Gay Arab Pride. Or Not.

[TheMastersSon]

Note to mods: another example of a topic that is potentially debatable, and please feel free to move it to Debates if you wish. But it's intended as an informational post and I'm sincerely not looking for debate from anyone who might believe Lebanon's abject fascism is justified.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-44141603

From the article:

"Article 534 of Lebanon's penal code punishes "any sexual intercourse contrary to the order of nature" with up to one year in prison, and has been used to prosecute people suspected of homosexuality."

Anyone know how they reconcile this law with what is actually observed in nature? Homosexuality is routinely seen in not dozens or hundreds but thousands of different animal species, including ours. It might be accurate to call it abnormal but it's certainly not unnatural. Also studies consistently indicate that somewhere around 80% of us have had or will have at least one homosexual experience in our lives, the vast majority of these for heterosexuals are during puberty and the following experimentation period.

I've always been at a loss to explain institutionalized gay bashing, since another thing that all studies tell us is that sexual orientation is immutable for both heterosexuals and homosexuals. 5% of any human population are currently questioning their sexuality, the other 95% are not. These numbers never change, therefore what societal threat does (or even can) either orientation pose to the other? I've never understood it even as a kid a half century ago. One last thing studies have revealed is that the so-called "ick response" to homosexuality is a learned behavior and does not occur in children who are not taught to respond that way to it by their families, cultures and religions. It turns out the natural response is neutral since it's essentially and simply physical expression of self-love.

Edited May 19, 2018 by TheMastersSon

[Rabbit1251]

Well, I don't like the idea of anyone being 'Institutionalized' for being 'Suspected' of anything let alone personal prejudice. The very idea harkins back to Old Salem, if you take my meaning, where one "suspected" homosexual was horribly killed along with the suspected Witches.

 

 

The Rabbit

[HadToRegister]

They need to define "any sexual intercourse contrary to the order of nature" in detail, because according to nature, pretty much everything goes.
From Chimps engaging in homosexual activity to Dolphins using flounders or dead fish to masturbate.

[TheMastersSon]

What struck me about the phrase is that it requires one to actually be God, to know what might constitute the entire "order of nature". My favorite theory about gay people comes from indigenous American tribes ("Indians"), some of whom believe gay people are "special purpose" beings from God (i.e. not intended to procreate from the beginning). It rings true in my ears based on personal experience. Or they could simply be one natural form of population control. Who knows for sure? But to claim a definitive or comprehensive understanding of the "order of nature" is somewhere between absurd and delusional, and frankly embarrassing and pathetic imo. Edited May 16, 2018 by TheMastersSon

[HeyYou]

What struck me about the phrase is that it requires one to actually be God, to know what might constitute the entire "order of nature". My favorite theory about gay people comes from indigenous American tribes ("Indians"), some of whom believe gay people are "special purpose" beings from God (i.e. not intended to procreate from the beginning). It rings true in my ears based on personal experience. Or they could simply be one natural form of population control. Who knows for sure? But to claim a definitive or comprehensive understanding of the "order of nature" is somewhere between absurd and delusional, and frankly embarrassing and pathetic imo.

Basically, what it means is "any sex whose intended purpose is anything other than procreation".......

 

How dull. :D

[TheMastersSon]

That definition isn't justifiable according to their own scriptures. Unless you're claiming nine year-old girls are of childbearing age.

[HeyYou]

That definition isn't justifiable according to their own scriptures. Unless you're claiming nine year-old girls are of childbearing age.

Mohammad may have had the intent, regardless of whether his partner had the ability. :)

[TheMastersSon]

Maybe. IMO it doesn't magically transform him into something other than a pedophile.

 

[HeyYou]

Maybe. IMO it doesn't magically transform him into something other than a pedophile.

And on that, I agree with you. :D

 

Mohammad was one of the greatest of con men. Right up there with Joseph Smith.

[TheMastersSon]

Depeding on location the "order of nature" is defined as everything from polygamy to marrying six year-old girls. But regardless of location every bit of it is testament to human stupidity imo, the imposition of human limitations on the infinite. Alan Watts once called religions "sexual regulation societies" and imo he nailed it. The regulation is often primarily and in many cases exclusively for financial purposes not moral, it's why they exert so much energy working against not for civil marriage rights for gay people and abortion rights for women. You gotta keep the money plopping into the baskets. Even in China, where the PRC has installed their own "bishops" in the RCC to siphon their take of donations. Apparently it's the only way the RCC is alllowed to remain in the country at all. Amazing what's possible when the world accepts totalitarian Communism as a legitimate form of government. Edited May 18, 2018 by TheMastersSon