"'cross-dressing tourists' in Dibai" various #'s

[BrendaQG]

(Some news reports now say the number is 40 and that most of the people arrested were immediately deported. Makes me wonder they have poice at the airport right? So why allow us to enter the country if that's how they feel?)

This would turn up here eventually in some form. So let me just get in front of the story.

According to CNN


Moral crackdown in Dubai
Dubai police crack down on immoral behavior of Westerners in the conservative Muslim state. CNN's Wilf Dinnick reports.


17 'cross-dressing tourists' held in Dubai

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) -- Police in the Gulf tourist hub of Dubai say they've detained 17 foreigners for allegedly displaying homosexual behavior in the city's shopping malls and other public places.

Police spokesman Zuhair Horoun says all the suspects are men who were either visiting or working in Dubai. He says they were detained Wednesday but did not elaborate or give details about their behavior.

But the Dubai-based Gulf News reported Thursday that police detained "40 cross-dressing tourists."

The paper quotes Dubai's police chief as saying the arrests are part of a campaign against "transvestites."

Outward homosexual behavior is banned in the United Arab Emirates. Despite its Western outlook, Dubai is a conservative Muslim city-state and, like much of the Arab world, remains largely hostile to homosexuality.

I will reserve judgment on this story until I know more details. It could be the UAE is in the wrong. I mean if those girls were just standing around acting normal that's one thing. Or it could be that those girls were trying to solicit either sex or business right there in the mall. Either of which would be unacceptable in a country like the UAE where even the genetic females cannot do that.... and if those girls were on the stroll well that's not legal here either.

Since they are presumably not Muslims they will not be likely not be subject to Sharia law. Which can be good and bad for the accused. The actual crime in sharia is to have anal sex. To prove a crime in Sharia needs four male Muslim eye witnesses (women count for 1/2 supposedly women might bend the truth out of emotion). Unless their accusers have that they would go free.

I suppose there are some who will write that such restrictions are wrong and the UAE should change. Well by what standard are we to judge? Are the barbarities of our society any more genteel than those of the UAE? Are it's niceties any less attractive than ours? The lesson for a western GLBT person should be as follows.

1.) If you cannot do as the Muslims do when it comes to your sexuality then stay out of their countries. They have GLBT communities in their countries they just act differently than us.

2.)If you must go there then be sensitive to their culture, it will not change just because of a US passport. Be discrete, not closeted or ashamed, just discrete. Make sure to keep any and all sex you have behind closed doors. Do not try to hook up at random only speak of sex with people you know, trust, and are confident will not turn on you.

3.)Know your rights and how to contact your countries embassy. They can at least help you find a decent attorney. Any decent scholar will tell you exactly what I have said about the evidence needed to convict you. If all your sex is behind closed doors (where it should be anyway), even if you are on camera, then you should have nothing to fear.

One thing that is notable to me is that I have seen and heard many times of foreign gay males and trans gender females getting into trouble there and almost never of natives of the UAE. LGBT people provably exist there natively. They likely follow the above guidelines. They are like my cousin who lives in NYC ...or.... say... the way your average glbt republican does things. They are gay and people around them know it they just don't discuss it. That is how you have to play it over there if you are gay.

___________

If you are transsexual and pre-op or non-op. Islamic law only cares about sexuality and not gender presentation. (I can produce you tube video's up the wazoo to back this up) Transwomen can move and act as freely over there as we do over here. However just like basically everyone else GLB or straight you have to check any sexual exhibitionism at the door when you leave your hotel or home. ( See above. )

I now expect to be bombarded with the usual cries of how crazy I am for writing anything but how horrible all dirty ol Muslims are and how we should all be killed. OR that we should all just convert to secular humanism. Or any number of slanderous lies or phobic things that would not be tolerated, even here about any other group... To which I say.... whatever. :sigh:

All I know is that when I go to a high hill in the park across the street from my apartment some Fridays, cry out the Athan (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLOdugztTe8) inviting any Muslims in earshot to pray with me, and hearing it echoed by brothers and sisters in the distance, that feels better than anything. (I know they hear because when I go to the catfish place and order the guy behind the counter mentioned this and gave me a free coke. He says and I agree one has to be brave to be Muslim in the USA.)

Now I am going to go say the early morning prayer.

As sallam ul-lakium

[BrendaQG]

To backup what I have to say about Islamic Law. This here is in reference apparently to a cross dresser and not a TS but it would apply I reckon.



London Telegraph:Cross-dressing British tourist acquitted
Last Updated: 12:55PM BST 13/08/2001 (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/719480/Cross-dressing-British-tourist-acquitted.html)

A Dubai court has acquitted a British tourist of violating public morals after he was arrested in a gold market dressed as a woman

A DUBAI court has acquitted a British tourist of violating public morals after he was arrested in a gold market dressed as a woman.

Judge Adnan al-Shawa said 55-year-old Philip Hulks's attire "contradicted general standards of decency expected by UAE society, but was not against the law".

Mr Hulks, a retired electronics engineer who has been on several visits to the United Arab Emirates, was arrested on July 8 wearing a black abaya robe and veil. He contended the outfit was a present for his wife which he had tried on for size.

Mr Hulks was also said to be in possession of an air pistol and pieces of cardboard rolled up like dynamite. Police initially suspected that he could have been planning a robbery but no extra charges were filed. Mr Hulks said: "It was a coincidence. I have never thought or planned to commit a robbery."

There's more to this story than simply "being" GLBT.

[Tomfurbs]

Stop pretending that Islamic countries are this magical haven for transsexuals.

If homosexuality is not allowed in a Muslim country, but SRS is and widely accepted, that is not tolerance of Transwomen, but an ulitmatum for homosexuals.

'Get the op, or to the gallows with you' is not furthering the cause of GLBT rights.

Heh. And then when you've been operated on, you only count as 1/2 a person!

[BrendaQG]

Stop pretending that Islamic countries are this magical haven for transsexuals.

If homosexuality is not allowed in a Muslim country, but SRS is and widely accepted, that is not tolerance of Transwomen, but an ulitmatum for homosexuals.

'Get the op, or to the gallows with you' is not furthering the cause of GLBT rights.

Heh. And then when you've been operated on, you only count as 1/2 a person!

Did you not read the second post I made?

"Judge Adnan al-Shawa said 55-year-old Philip Hulks's attire "contradicted general standards of decency expected by UAE society, but was not against the law". "

There you have it right from A Judges's mouth in the UAE. Simply being a transwoman with or without the op is not a crime.

Another thing is tom if you go back 20 years and I remember this well gay and gay friendly people were saying the same things about transsexualism right here in the USA.

Also the 1/2 a person thing is not true either. A woman is a whole person who in some circumstances has more rights than a man. The circumstance of her testimony being given less weight is in trials in court and inheritance. A circumstance where a woman has more rights is in family law. A divorced woman is entitled to a alimony for life (has been since the time of Muhammad), entitled to divorce almost on a whim, entitled to full custody of the children getting more money from the husband for having more children. [l]The man in a divorce is entitled to nothing at all.[/i]

It is a give and take. Under Sharia men and women are equal but not the same. That is hard for non-Muslim westerners to get a grasp on. This must be so for The vast majority of Muslim converts in the west are well educated females (consult any source you want).

Transsexuals living in the Islamic world (Pakistan 10 years ago)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CRjCdjsyc0

Muslim women converts.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3UXYJR3q9Q

A Saudi Cleric speaking about how Deobandi (a.k.a. Whabbi) Muslims view women and their role in the household. Pay close attention to what he says at 2:17 it goes both ways.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MylrCU3u6V8


I have most Germaine showed you.

a.) A quote from a UAE Judge on crossdressing in the UAE and there interpretation of Sharia and it NOT being illegal.

b.)I have shown you a video made at least a decade ago about the lives of TS/TG women in Pakistan. They are no better or worse off there than we were about a decade ago.

c.)I have shown you a video where muslim convert women in the USA talk about their lives. Dealing with the deeply held misconceptions like these here is the hardest part of their lives here.

d.) A Saudi Cleric speaking on what their view of women and womens rights is. But his is just one interpretation and perhaps the interpretation which is most oppressive of all to women. Yet at 2:17 of the video he does mention the explicit sexual equality of husband and wife.

I fully expect that in light of this evidence you will just call me crazy. That's just a risk I take for living, not just thinking, outside the box.

[Tomfurbs]

I know transsexualism is not a crime in Islamic countries. I never said it was.

Homosexuality is, as is anal sex.

Therefore telling homo's that they have to get SRS or face execution is an ultimatum, and has nothing to do with being tolerant of Transsexuals.

Have you ever travelled to an Islamic country Branda?


Edit: You are either a tolerant society, or you ain't.

[BrendaQG]

No I have not yet. But I know LGBT people who have and they had no problems what so ever. One person I knew on a certain other TG message board, one meant for moral support, actually checked in from Saudi Arabia was pre-op and had only one problem which was needing to be accompanied by a sexually un interested male wherever she went. (This is what they do to females. Supposedly that male will protect the female from being attacked. I am sure the males find it inconvenient too. I know most men are irritated when their woman takes them shopping here.)

As for what you say about SRS being seen as a cure for homosexuality... that is total BS. First of all that argument was used here in the USA 10-20-30 years ago and shown to be BS. Knowledgeable scholars of Islam who have taken the time to look closely at TG issues, as Ayatola Khomeni did, recognize the difference between homosexuals and transsexuals. ( He did this BEFORE he took control of Iran back in the late 70's.)

I freely acknowledge that things are not perfect there. Read what LGBT groups in Indonesia have to say. (http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2008/06/09/asian-gay-transgender-groups-fight-their-rights.html) What I do not see in thier complaints is talk of being summarily executed just because they have some sugar in their swagger. There as here real problems exist. Things like job and housing discrimination. What bothers me is that some in the Islamic world do not recognize that even when one is not perfectly pious or normative that they still have rights. There are some who look at these matters, anything that they interpret as being sin, renders the sinner unworthy of human rights. Be that "sin" alcoholism, homosexuality, gambling, etc... There as here some preach hate from the pulpit and use their holy book to justify it.

Unlike here though it seems that only those splashy characters flamboyantly preaching hate are all you see on CNN and especially FOX (Mysteriously I have to admit the O'Riley Factor has actually been somewhat fair to Muslims.)

You never hear of the other side of that debate in the Muslim world if you rely solely on the western media. Like in this story. From the very same source. Where a conference of Indonesian Scholars concluded..."Homosexuals and homosexuality are natural and created by God, thus permissible within Islam" (http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2008/03/27/islam-039recognizes-homosexuality039.html)

[Tomfurbs]

Ah yes, the old 'Western Media' bullshit. This may come as a surprise to you, but some police forces in London have been allowing Sharia courts to practice law in the heavily moslem-populated areas of London, in order to improve community relations and curb crime. Yes, everyone in the west is an Islamaphobe!

I have been to Riyadh three times. The way women are treated there is not some beautiful expression of an ancient culture, it is women-hatred, pure and simple.

I am saying to you, Brenda, that if a nation treats transsexuals well, while treating homosexuals poorly, then something is 'Rotten in the State of Denmark'.

Homosexuality is punishable by death in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Mauritania, northern Nigeria, Sudan, and Yemen. Therefore, if you are a MTF transsexual who doesn't want the op, but still wants a sex life, you will be committing (in the eyes of the law) a homosexual act (dick-in-bum, heaven forbid!!!).

The 'SRS as a cure for homosexuality' is my understanding/distillation of the many posts you have written on this subject.

Lets see what Dr. Abdul Aziz Al-Fawzan, writing in Islamweb.net, has to say about butt-fucking: 'This sin, the impact of which makes one’s skin crawl, which words cannot describe, is evidence of perverted instincts, total collapse of shame and honor, and extreme filthiness of character and soul… The heavens, the Earth and the mountains tremble from the impact of this sin. The angels shudder as they anticipate the punishment of Allah to descend upon the people who commit this indescribable sin'

Here's Dr. Taha Jaber Al-`Alwani, President of the Graduate School of Islamic and Social Sciences and President of the Fiqh Council, writing in 2004: 'It has also been narrated from the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) that this crime deserves severe punishment more than that of adultery to insure its deterrence and restraint. Verily, the punishment here is the burning of both homosexuals (the actor and acted upon) or stoning them with rocks till death because Allah Most High stoned the people of Lut after demolishing their village'

And of course, the good old Qu'ran:

(Koran 4:16)
If two men among you are guilty of lewdness, punish
them both...

(Koran 27:55)
Would ye really approach men in your lusts rather
than Women? Nay, ye are a people (grossly) ignorant!

Not to mention The Hadith:

“When a man mounts another man, the throne of God shakes.”

“Kill the one who is doing it and also kill the one that it is being done to.”


That's not 'Western Media's distortion', Brenda. That's straight from the horse's mouth.

Why would you want to have anything to do with those people?

[BrendaQG]

Honey I never said that the Islamic world was heaven. All I have ever said is that it is not worse than it is here.

You like to mention Sharia punishments but not Sharia evidence standards. To prove in a Sharia court that one is guilty of anal sex is almost impossible unless you are a total exhibionist having sex virtually in public.

Name the last time gay man was killed for homosexuality in Saudi Arabia, or the UAE.

The last executions anyone knows of for that were in Iran and those as it turns out were not for loving homosexual sex. Those were the hangings of two boys who raped a younger boy.

Yes in the Islamic world we have extremist and we have moderates too. You cannot say that one or the other holds more sway in all cases.

[El Nino]

Religion is mind-control.

[BrendaQG]

True to an extent. Weather created by god or by man I am a strong beliver in meme theory.

At least the Abrahamic religion(s) are a memes which prevents more evil than they cause. Imagine how violent west Eurasia would be if every village had it's own god? Imagine how violent some people would get if they thought there would be no eternal punishment for the wicked.

[BrendaQG]

Tough stance on those who mimic opposite sex

Rasha Abu Baker

* Last Updated: May 25. 2008 11:53PM UAE / May 25. 2008 7:53PM GMT (http://www.thenational.ae/article/20080525/NATIONAL/711363205/1010&profile=1010)




DUBAI // The Government should carry out research into a “dangerous” trend of cross-dressing that was becoming prevalent in schools, Dubai police said.

Police said a number of arrests have been made recently, mainly of male cross-dressers with long hair, make-up and women’s clothing in public places such as malls, parks, souks and schools.

Lt Gen Dahi Khalfan Tamim, the Dubai police chief, suggested yesterday that mixed education could be to blame and called on the Ministry of Social Affairs (MSA) to try to pinpoint the causes and establish the extent of the problem.

“The Ministry should study this to see whether the problem is society-based, and should offer solutions,” he said.

Lt Gen Tamim was speaking at the launch of a week-long awareness campaign sponsored by a number of government bodies, including Abu Dhabi police, the MSA and the Ministry of Religious Affairs, which hoped to draw attention to the issue. He said cross-dressing was prevalent in many secondary schools, high schools and universities.

The police could not explain why cross-dressing was growing in popularity, although Lt Gen Tamim believes that co-education and a lack of parental guidance could be factors.

Cross-dressers, or “the third sex” as they are often called, cause confusion for teachers, parents and pupils. The practice of dressing as a member of the opposite sex is particularly evident in all-male schools, but in girls’ high schools “boyat” – an Arabic slang term – is becoming increasingly commonplace.

Dressed to appear masculine, with short, boyish haircuts and an attitude to match, the female boyat befriends and flirts with other girls. However, innocent flirtation can lead to physical relations and even sexual assault.

Young men, dressed in flamboyant feminine clothes with matching make-up, have become an increasingly common image.

Lt Gen Tamim called on the MSA to look into the possibility that co-education was to blame. “Some studies conducted in the West indicate that mixing girls and boys can encourage this behaviour.”

The police chief suggested the introduction five years ago of mixed-sex education for children between first and sixth grade could be one reason for the sudden growth in cross-dressing.

“This phenomenon was not apparent until mixed education was introduced,” he said. “A boy brought up around girls, and a girl brought up around boys, will be affected by the behaviour of the opposite sex, which could cause confusion.”

Lt Gen Tamim added that although the problem was affecting government and private schools, there was more chance that being in a mixed environment could encourage this behaviour. “I call upon the Ministry of Social Affairs to conduct a field study to determine whether mixing children could be a possible reason for this behaviour.”

The police campaign aims to stamp out what is seen as a harmful trend in schools, while raising awareness among society.

“We aim to educate people, especially parents, on the dangers of cross-dressing and want to call on all sectors of society, including the education and religious bodies, to work together to fight this,” Lt Gen Tamim added.

The police also vowed to take a tougher stance against those caught mimicking or impersonating the opposite sex.

“If a girl dresses like a boy and a boy goes out dressed as the girl-next-door, they will be subjected to the law. It is illegal for a person to emulate the opposite sex and offend those around them,” he said.

He urged parents to spend more time with their children rather than leaving their upbringing to housemaids.

“Not all housemaids are qualified to raise children according to our culture,” he said.

Police declined yesterday to reveal the number of arrests that have been made in relation to cross-dressing.

[BrendaQG]

What I see in all of this is great deal of confusion in the Islamic world.

Far from a unified, and clear image of what to do with GLBT people I see a group that in a sense has not advanced in 1400 years. Basically nothing has changed since this story.


"Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 41, Number 4910: Narrated AbuHurayrah: A mukhannath who had dyed his hands and feet with henna was brought to the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him). He asked: What is the matter with this man? He was told: Apostle of Allah! he affects women's get-up. So he ordered regarding him and he was banished to an-Naqi'. The people said: Apostle of Allah! should we not kill him? He said: I have been prohibited from killing people who pray. AbuUsamah said: Naqi' is a region near Medina and not a Baqi (in other words not referring to Jannat al-Baqi cemetery. Indicating they were not punished.)'[1]"

I have posted it here before. To which it seems people are like yeah whatever. But really reflect on what it's saying.

A mob of people found a transwoman of some kind brought her to Muhammad and expected him to punish them, demanded that they be killed. This was not motivated by religion because when this happened Islam had not yet been fully revealed...these people were pagans just yesterday...yet the harbored a great trans and homo phobia. It is a safe bet that this was revealed after the Quranic story of Lut (lot, the prophet of Sodom in which the sin of Liwat is defined.)

When Muhammad said that this person could not be executed, or punished in any way for the mere open appearance of a Mukhannath (lit a man who resembels a woman). Instead the person was sent away. To a oasis town where they would be left in peace.

What we see in the UAE is that in that society unlike in Iran and Pakistan and Egypt or even Yemen they have not come to terms with the existence of such people in the midst. The other place I named are no strangers to being international destinations, with wealth, glamor and glamorous people be they male or female. For thoudans f years those other places were cosmopolitan. Whereas the UAE until oil was found there was a by water with little population that rarely saw outsiders of any kind. The UAE is a country struggling to define it self and reacting to the changes money brings.

Consider the guy in the above story who thinks that co educational schools would cause this behavior! So I guess a bit of situational homosexuality in a all male boarding madrasa is totally acceptable? (Don't say that can't happen they had a scandal just as bad as our priest scandal in the Tribal Area's of Pakistan over just that.)

It is likely any traswoman in the UAE up until 20 years ago would have caught the first Dhow to Egypt, Iran, or Pakistan...the place was totally dead. Now that there's money all kinds of new people are coming in from other Islamic countries, as well as non-Islamic Countries.

Like I said reserve judgment over all of this, right now media sources vary wildly over the number of people effected and the circumstances around each arrest.

[Tomfurbs]

Honey I never said that the Islamic world was heaven. All I have ever said is that it is not worse than it is here.

You like to mention Sharia punishments but not Sharia evidence standards. To prove in a Sharia court that one is guilty of anal sex is almost impossible unless you are a total exhibionist having sex virtually in public.

Name the last time gay man was killed for homosexuality in Saudi Arabia, or the UAE.

The last executions anyone knows of for that were in Iran and those as it turns out were not for loving homosexual sex. Those were the hangings of two boys who raped a younger boy.

Yes in the Islamic world we have extremist and we have moderates too. You cannot say that one or the other holds more sway in all cases.

'Honey', how can you say that it is not worse than it is here when you have never visited an Islamic nation? Your partisan, blinkered (outside the box lmao) thinking is pretty cold-hearted when it gets down to the nitty gritty. Bare in mind that you have just admitted Iran kills homosexuals. (but who cares about a couple of gays when your busy creating Allah's paradise on earth, right?)

Think about what you are saying. I very rarely defend the west because we have a long way to go ourselves, but at least you are free in the west to :

Say what you want.
Believe what you want.
Fuck who you want.
Read what you want.

If you are going to attempt to say that you can do all those things in Iran, Saudi, Yemen, Oman etc. then I am afraid you are reaching, girlfriend, and also betraying your ignorance.


Stonewall's website and Peter Tatchell's website (you won't have heard of him, he started 'Outrage', a homoexual support group in the UK) keep a tally of persecution and execution of homosexuals in the Islamic world. But of course, they are degenerate western liars whose only agenda is to smear the wondrous truth of Islam?



Here are some articles about this from the nasty biased western media:

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3962

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1583420/Saudi-woman-killed-for-chatting-on-Facebook.html

http://www.petertatchell.net/religion/dark%20ages.htm


Brenda, if you travelled to Riyadh, met the man of your dreams there, and wanted to have sex with him, how do you think that would play with the Saudi Authorities? Do you think they would come over all lbgt llovey-dovey? Wouldn't bet the farm on it, eh?

[BrendaQG]

Tom I don't need to walk on the sun in order to know it would burn. I don't nee to go to the moon to know that I would need a space suit.

I say that most people who think like you about the Islamic world base their POV on ethnocentrism. On some level you think they have to be like us in order to be modern tolerant and advanced.

I say that they already are but in a way that makes sense to their culture. Gay westerners cannot go there and be as open about their sexuality as they are here. Straight westerners cannot go there and be as open about their sexuality as they are here. Sexuality in general is under wraps there. So if we are just talking about any sexuality all I can say is keep it to yourself in the Islamic world.

If we are talking about transsexual/transgender people I can cite precidents and actual court cases where people were put on trial over this. Where they were relased with no action taken agianst them. Going right back to the Prophet Muhammad.

All you can do in relation to TS/TG's is mention random hate crimes, which are a different story, and happen here in the USA today right now! Or what you have done is change the subject to gay people.

I have answered your emotional criticisms with reason. You say I will never go to the Islamic world. How will you feel when I go on Hajj to Saudia Arabia and return unmolested? Will you still impune my expertise then? In what world does a rank outsider know more about what it is to be in a group than a insider! I am a muslim I have worshipped with Muslims who knew my T no less. They are no activist at that mosque they are just from Albania and Pakistan. (I suppose in your racist mind a muslim is only really a muslim if they are an Arab!)

Where do you get off telling me how muslims would treat me.

to you is your way and to me is mine.

[hippifried]

True to an extent. Weather created by god or by man I am a strong beliver in meme theory.

At least the Abrahamic religion(s) are a memes which prevents more evil than they cause.
Really? & what religious memes would you say have caused more evil than they've prevented? I'm thinking your statement about Abramic religions is a meme in itself.


Imagine how violent west Eurasia would be if every village had it's own god?
They do now, really. It's just not necessarily a regional thing. When you boil them down, all religions are monotheist. There's always a creator. All monotheists believe in the same creator by default. But every sect of every one of them has a different take on the belief system. What's to imagine? Just look around.


Imagine how violent some people would get if they thought there would be no eternal punishment for the wicked.
& what, pray tell, makes you think that's a deterrent? If it was, shouldn't there be a corresponding drop in the amount of mass murder & persecution in the name of whatever belief? I can imagine the violence that would never have occurred without the attempt at forceful proselytization, even now with the war on Islam. Make no mistake. That's what the "war on terror" is.

Got any more memes you want to toss out there?

My thinking is that religious memetics have only served to obfuscate the Universal Code of Human Interaction, commonly known as "the golden rule", through the institution of arbitrary rules. The Code is what defines morality & ethics. It's our conscience. One's point of view is irrelevant because the Code works if seen as purely egoistic, purely altruistic,or any combination in between. Adherence to the Code requires no religious belief whatsoever. Just the knowlege that you would react negatively to certain actions, so it's in your own self interest to avoid those same negative reactions from others. The Code is what makes us social critters & allows us to live in close proximity to others of our own species. It's social logic at its most basic, & I think it's hardwired into our very being as an instinct. We follow it most of the time because it's natural. We have to come up with abstracts & justifications to talk ourselves into deliberately violating the Code.

Aaah, & so the point emerges...

If you can't relate it to the Code, it's not a moral issue. Any rule that doesn't relate to the Code is just arbitrary, & an arbitrary rule can never be universal because there's always those who see the arbitrariness & won't buy it. That's the problem with religious memes. It's expected that you'll buy into the whole package if you buy into any part of it. It just doesn't work that way. Ergo global religious strife dating back to prehistory. Maybe it's time to just junk the memes. Religious power is just power. It's a tool for putting a set of elitists in charge of everyone else. It's no different from monarchy or any other kind of dictatorship. It stifles the human ability to make choices. That ability is what makes social progress possible & puts us on top of the food chain. Religious memes just get in the way slow down the process.

[BrendaQG]

@ Hippie

You decry religion then mention the golden ruel. That came from the scriptures of Christianity and was enunciated by the prophet Issa (Jesus, Peace be Upon Him). Even you base your philosophy on religion!


Matthew 7 v12

Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

Luke 6 v31

And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.


Take a gander at this. Look at the transwomen in this film who have lived in an Islamic country all their lives. If such people are persecuted then why are they still alive?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqiWOEXZHIE

I'll tell you why. Because unlike those who traveld to the Emirates and sparked this post they have done no real wrong. They are just living as Muslims in Muslim land and being queer.

I am willing to admit that the house of Islam has it's problems. Are you willing to admit that it also has good aspects even for GLTB people? ( Think not because I am now convinced that Islamophobia is the one raging bigotry that GLBT and allies allow themselves to have. A really rabid unthinking condemnation of a 1.4 billion people and our beliefs. How else am I to interpret someone saying that Muslims should disregard the holy Qr'an and instead base all religion on two utterances of Jesus Christ! Naught but conversion to the sometimes religiosity of most americans!)

[Tomfurbs]

You say I will never go to the Islamic world.

Where do you get off telling me how muslims would treat me.



I never said you will never go to the Islamic world. Try reading my posts before responding.

Yes this topic makes me emotional, because Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world, and religion makes me emotional. I can get off telling you how muslim's would treat you because A) I live in a predominantly muslim (Pakistani) part of London and have more day-to-day contact with ordinary muslims than you I expect, and B) because I have travelled to the Middle East more than once. You have never done so.

People within the LGBT community have every right to be Islamophobic, bacause of how they are talked about by Islamic Clerics. Just as they have a right to hate Fundamentalist Christians and Homophobes of all stripes. It has fuck-all to do with 'fashion'. If you cannot see that Gay rights and Transgendered rights are linked then you obviously have not covered Inductive Reasoning in your Uni course yet.


All you can do in relation to TS/TG's is mention random hate crimes, which are a different story, and happen here in the USA today right now!

Trying to equate hate crimes in the west ( I assume you are including Europe in 'The West' - hey...have you ever travelled to Europe?) against Gays and Transsexuals with the Middle East is akin to trying top equate the McCarthy Witch-hunt's with Stalin's purges.

Your argument, while coldly emotionless, is by no means reasoned. Strangely (for a 'scientist') you choose to believe what you want to believe rather than what is before your own eyes.

The clerics I quoted in my earlier posts are not Islamofacists or fundamentalists. They are respected mouthpieces of the mainstream. Not to mention the quotes from those spiritual texts. So I say again:

Why would you want to have anything to do with an organisation that harboured such execrable views?

Ohh...why did you call me a racist?

[BrendaQG]

Oh yeah right tom.

A transsexual beaten to death in Arabia has it so much worse than a transsexual beaten to death in Brooklyn. Dead is dead.

To blame the dominant religion or culture for the acts of violent people in it is either a cop out, or ethnocentricity.

Just face it for some reason you harbor a bias against the Islamic world in this regard.

[Tomfurbs]

Religion is human weakness. It is our attempt to deal with the existential crisis that is the Human Condition. After all religions/faith systems/ superstitions/ myths/ legends have been considered, we are no closer to knowing why we are here, how the universe came into being, or what happens when we die.

The fact that people have used religion (human weakness) as a cover for their own Women-Hatred and Homophobia angers me. In our lifetime, Islam is the most forthright practitioner of this. Therefore, I have contempt for Islam, just as I have contempt for all crack-pot belief systems.

If you think that opinion is racist, then may I suggest you go back to school and learn about what words mean.


When someone (who has actually travelled there)levels criticism at The Middle-East , it actually means they care about the people who live there.

Trying to cut down criticism of Islam by saying that it is just prejudice on the part of the criticiser is a convenient, but pathetic, argument, and implies you are being defensive.

[BrendaQG]

You all know my position. Now feel free to conform to the Islamophobia of the GLBT community.

[trish]

The Golden Rule has been popularized in the "modern" western world by the biblical account of the Sermon on the Mount. However, the rule itself can be found in many earlier cultures and it is not always associated with a religion. Plato advocated the maxim (in the mouth of Socrates) in several dialogs: "Do not do to others that which would anger you if others did it to you." It's an obvious heuristic that would occur to any species whose members show any tendency to empathize with other members...a tendency which is probably requisite for the "invention", development and the acquisition of language.

In my opinion the heuristic functions best when applied universally. Its universal application is advocated by some religious texts. Religions, however, tend to be very sectarian, provincial and insular in their practices. As a consequence the Golden Rule is rarely applied to homosexuals, infidels, heretics, atheists, non-believers, evolutionists etc. etc. People who attempt to apply the rule more widely are accused by many religious conservatives of being "bleeding hearts".

[BrendaQG]

" the Golden Rule is rarely applied to homosexuals, infidels, heretics, atheists, non-believers, evolutionists etc. etc"

Conversely those groups all have their own dogma's. I.e. the GLBT community. In the west even in place where glbt's theoretically have the same rights we have here (brazil, India) there are still arguments to be found about what western english label to impose on a Hijra, or thai Katoey. In the west the GLBT communities dogma is Islam and all Muslims are homophobic and therefore fare game for hate speech and hostility. (Heck I can't even get a kosher hotdog at a picknick for gods sake!)

Seriously though another forbidden group seems to be Republicans. Say anything nice about a republican, even though there are many GLBT who are republicans and in some quarters you will be talked about like a dog or worse.

[hippifried]

@ Hippie

You decry religion then mention the golden ruel. That came from the scriptures of Christianity and was enunciated by the prophet Issa (Jesus, Peace be Upon Him). Even you base your philosophy on religion!


Matthew 7 v12

Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

Luke 6 v31

And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.

You misinterpret me. I don't decry religion. I just don't care about it & I don't buy into the meme that religious dogma is the be all & end all when it comes to a moral authority. We all know the difference between right & wrong whether there's someone preaching at us or not. The Code requires NO dogma, but the dogma requires the Code. All the great prophets worldwide preached the Code. Confucius, Gautama, Jesus, Muhammad, all of them. Our mythology from Gilgamesh to the modern cowboy is rampant with it. There's no society or culture on the planet who's base rules & laws don't revolve around the Code, & from what I can tell, there never has been. The Code predates recorded & even unrecorded history. It predates dogma. It certainly predates any kind of codification of arbitrary rules.

Where dogma clashes with the Code is in the institutionalization of obedience. Obedience to God invariably ends up as a demand for obedience to those who claim to speak for God. People adhere to the Code because it makes sense & they want to. They don't need orders or threats to do what's right, but only to be forced or cajoled into acquienscence to those in power. The problems aren't just with the house of Islam. The problem is the development & use of dogma as a strategem to gain elite control over people's lives. It doesn't jive with the Code, therefore religious dogma isn't the moral authority.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Trish,

This

In my opinion the heuristic functions best when applied universally. Its universal application is advocated by some religious texts. Religions, however, tend to be very sectarian, provincial and insular in their practices. As a consequence the Golden Rule is rarely applied to homosexuals, infidels, heretics, atheists, non-believers, evolutionists etc. etc.
is a bit round-about. The Universal Code of Human Interaction is just that. Universal. If it isn't applied universally, it isn't being applied. Any discrimination is a violation of the Code. The only way to justify it is through the dogma of caste (or whatever it's called in any given situation), & that's just bigotry. A violation of the Code is a violation of the Code, & it makes no difference who or why. Multiple generations of dogmatic memes can numb folks to to a continual violation of the Code, but they can never completely erase the recognizable fact that it's a violation to start with. The problem occurs when enforced or enforcable dogma overrides the voluntary Code. Keeping the homosexuals, infidels, heretics, atheists, non-believers, evolutionists etc... down keeps everybody down. It's an elitist mentality & a variation on the Boss Tweed remark that "one can always hire half the poor to kill the other half".

[BrendaQG]

Here is what Human Rights watch and an Iranian filmaker questioning gaycitynews for it's shoddy reporting on cases like the much publicised executions of two "gay" men. You've seen the pictures.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlDFDEvm1FI

In many subsequent reports you will find that those boys were hanged not for gay sex but fore raping a third younger boy. Which in my opinion makes hanging too good for them! Having been attacked in that way myself once I would have only been satisfied by stoning. (I have to content myself with knowing my own main attacker went to Prizon for 20 years and got it in the end.)

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Execution_of_two_gay_teens_in_Iran_spurs_controver sy

Apparently when it come to how GLTB's in the USA view Muslims and Islamic societies accusations are convictions and rumors are facts.

:_( are we not human? Or do your "golden rules" only apply to other sometimes Christians?

[trish]

If I understand you correctly, hippiefried, the Universal Code of Human Interaction is a sort of unarticulated Golden Rule that is “felt” by all human beings in their dealings with one another. We sense when the Code is being breached and we somehow understand when it is being observed. It nice to have it articulated, but the actual Code existed prior to its various codifications. I personally do not think there is a moral structure to the cosmos. I’m not sure whether you do or not, or whether it’s germane to this discussion or not. It seems to me that it is merely we humans who delineate for ourselves what constitutes moral behavior. I do think that there is such a thing as human nature and that human nature will influence our judgment of what constitutes moral behavior. I offer language as the possible evolutionary payoff of the capacity to empathize with one’s tribe. I offer empathy as the possible psychological origin of the notion of fairness, and of other moral notions and heuristics like the Golden Rule. I’m willing to grant that in the sense that these articulated notions and rules are derivative of something common to the psychology of all human beings, they are universal. Unfortunately, I don’t believe that means we can expect human beings to universally recognize the “authority” of the Universal Code of Human Interaction or any of its articulations. We can only each of us add the authority of our endorsement and hope the nugget of common humanity that sits as a seed within its simple reasonableness will transcend the promised appeal of heaven and the threats of hell.

[SarahG]

As for what you say about SRS being seen as a cure for homosexuality... that is total BS. First of all that argument was used here in the USA 10-20-30 years ago and shown to be BS. Knowledgeable scholars of Islam who have taken the time to look closely at TG issues, as Ayatola Khomeni did, recognize the difference between homosexuals and transsexuals. ( He did this BEFORE he took control of Iran back in the late 70's.)

Help me out here, I am confused. I don't see where he says anyone views srs as a cure for homosexuality:



I know transsexualism is not a crime in Islamic countries. I never said it was.

Homosexuality is, as is anal sex.

Therefore telling homo's that they have to get SRS or face execution is an ultimatum, and has nothing to do with being tolerant of Transsexuals.

Have you ever travelled to an Islamic country Branda?


Edit: You are either a tolerant society, or you ain't.

I think a big problem from in this thread, now that I've read it in its entirely, is that people are viewing the middle east as one nation, when it isn't.

Iran has a lot of polices the UAE lacks and vice versa. I really can't comment on which nations outside of Iran have gov funding for trans related medical costs, because I don't know that information. Going so far as to say Iran has such programs, and UAE doesn't would be a guess on my part.

That said Iran does have policies, that not all middle eastern countries have, i.e. allowing for the execution of homosexuals.

This is relevant:


Iran: Two More Executions for Homosexual Conduct

(New York, November 22, 2005) – Iran’s execution of two men last week for homosexual conduct highlights a pattern of persecution of gay men that stands in stark violation of the rights to life and privacy, Human Rights Watch said today.

On Sunday, November 13, the semi-official Tehran daily Kayhan reported that the Iranian government publicly hung two men, Mokhtar N. (24 years old) and Ali A. (25 years old), in the Shahid Bahonar Square of the northern town of Gorgan.

The government reportedly executed the two men for the crime of "lavat." Iran’s shari`a-based penal code defines lavat as penetrative and non-penetrative sexual acts between men. Iranian law punishes all penetrative sexual acts between adult men with the death penalty. Non-penetrative sexual acts between men are punished with lashes until the fourth offense, when they are punished with death. Sexual acts between women, which are defined differently, are punished with lashes until the fourth offense, when they are also punished with death.

“The execution of two men for consensual sexual activity is an outrage,” said Jessica Stern, researcher with the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Rights Program at Human Rights Watch. “The Iranian government’s persecution of gay men flouts international human rights standards.”

In addition to the two executions last week, there have been other cases of persecution and execution of gay men in Iran in recent years.


• In September 2003, police arrested a group of men at a private gathering in one of their homes in Shiraz and held them in detention for several days. According to Amir, one of the men arrested, police tortured the men to obtain confessions. The judiciary charged five of the defendants with “participation in a corrupt gathering” and fined them.

• In June 2004, undercover police agents in Shiraz arranged meetings with men through Internet chatrooms and then arrested them. Police held Amir, a 21-year-old, in detention for a week, during which time they repeatedly tortured him. The judicial authorities in Shiraz sentenced him to 175 lashes, 100 of which were administered immediately. Following his arrest, security officials subjected Amir to regular surveillance and periodic arrests. From July 2005 until he fled the country later in the year, police threatened Amir with imminent execution.

• On March 15, 2005, the daily newspaper Etemaad reported that the Tehran Criminal Court sentenced two men to death following the discovery of a video showing them engaged in homosexual acts. According to the paper, one of the men confessed that he had shot the video as a precaution in case his partner withdrew the financial support he had been providing in return for sex. In response to the man’s confession, his partner was summoned to the authorities and both men were sentenced to death. As the death penalty was pronounced against both men, it appears to have been based on their sexual activity.


“These abuses have created an atmosphere of terror for lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgender people throughout Iran,” said Stern. “But arrest, torture and execution are not limited to gays and lesbians. Any group of people deemed ‘immoral’ becomes subject to state-sanctioned persecution and even murder.”

In Iran, executions and lashings are regular means of punishment for a broad range of crimes, not merely same-sex acts. Judges often accept coerced confessions, and security officials routinely deny defendants access to counsel. Late last year, the Iranian judiciary, which has been at the center of many reported human rights violations, formed the Special Protection Division, a new institution that empowers volunteers to police moral crimes in neighborhoods, mosques, offices and any place where people gather. The Special Protection Division is an intrusive mechanism of surveillance that promotes prosecution of citizens for behavior in their private domain.

Human Rights Watch called upon the Iranian government to decriminalize homosexuality and reminded Iran of its obligations under Toonen v. Australia (1994), the Human Rights Committee’s authoritative interpretation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Iran is party. Toonen v. Australia extends recognition of the right to privacy and the right to freedom from discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation throughout human rights law.

Furthermore, Human Rights Watch urged Iran to reform its judiciary in accordance with principles for fair trials enshrined in both the Iranian constitution and international human rights law. Finally, Human Rights Watch called upon Iran to cease implementation of capital punishment in all circumstances because of its inherent cruelty, irreversibility, and potential for discriminatory application.

Source: http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2005/11/21/iran12072.htm

My commentary:

It is possible that Human Rights Watch is a biased source, I really don't know to what extent that observation can be made.

The anarchist in me, albeit a very very small part of me, sees Tomfurbs ending assertion as being baseless, I have a tough time picturing any society or any government being truly tolerant on well, just about all issues.

However on a given issue I do not see it as out of the question to compare existing societies or governments to draw conclusions based on relative levels of tolerance (on a given issue one country or society maybe more tolerant than another). How to express that subjectively I do not know, but there is a fundamental intolerance when people are being put to death for victimless crimes, under any system, for any reason . That people aren't put to death for homosexual acts in other countries shows if nothing else that some countries are more tolerant than others (regardless whether true complete tolerance is even possible) toward homosexuality.

I am curious your position on natural rights, you can not use the "other cultures have other standards" argument if natural rights exist, in the form of freedom of religion, speech, and so on.

The origin of multiculturalism is, unless I am mistaken (which happens) in sociology where it is used not to prevent comparisons or to make judgments, but as a tool for understanding the function of an element in a society. I.e. poverty has a function in societies, and multiculturalism is used in the analysis of that function, not to comment on its merits or ethics. That doesn't mean dialogs over ethics are impossible...

Edit- I meant to add this:



In many subsequent reports you will find that those boys were hanged not for gay sex but fore raping a third younger boy. Which in my opinion makes hanging too good for them! Having been attacked in that way myself once I would have only been satisfied by stoning. (I have to content myself with knowing my own main attacker went to Prizon for 20 years and got it in the end.)

Even if that is true (I make no claims to the validity of any reports I mention even in vague reference), that does not address everything else that Human Rights Watch has mentioned in relation to this case, and others usually mentioned in close proximity to this one.

How much of it is made up propaganda? Are [i]all these reports, about ignoring due process et al fictional?

Even if the most brutal crime imaginable to mankind occurs that doesn't give sovereigns the legal power to do whatever the hell they want in punishing the accused... especially if there are actions committed in the investigation of these crimes that call the accuracy of the accusals into questions.

As an example that may or may not apply to this case, torture is well documented as being grossly inaccurate. People say what they think will end the torture which may or may not be the truth. A rape investigation going around torturing even the usual suspects is going to make it hard to see the reliability of that evidence especially in cases void of dna evidence (which itself is not always without accuracy problems). Police brutality likewise drains judicial processes along similar means.

[hippifried]

The "Universal Code of Human Interaction" is my name for it.
The "Golden Rule" is English speaking western society's name for it.
I'm sure it's called a lot of different things around the world.

No matter. It's the same thing. Articulated, the rule states: "Treat other people the way you would prefer to be treated by them.", or more commonly "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.". It needs no articulation though. It's innate. Any time we violate the Code, we know. Automatically & instantaneously, we know. The common term for that in English speaking western society is "conscience". Everybody knows when they're being an asshole.

Nearly all people follow the Code most of the time & aren't even aware of it. It's not really something you have to think about. It's automatic. Whether it's malicious or just rash, you have to go out of your way to violate. This is our human nature that lots of folks like to talk about. You always hear about all the bad stuff that people do, & it gets attributed to human nature, but the reality is that those are anomalies. Real human nature is the day to day mundane following of the Code. It's part of the survival instinct. We're social critters who need that socialization or we don't crawl out of the cave. Hell, we don't even find the cave because we aren't well equipped to survive on our own. Compared to other critters, we're weak for our size, have no fangs or claws, & we're slow. Without numbers, we're just easy prey that goes extinct before we ever get started. Our conscience allows us to live communally without killing ourselves off, & that allows us to survive in the world of critters that actually do have fangs & claws.

I don't know for cosmic moral structure. We're not the cosmos. The theologians can argue that all they like. But we do have a moral compass, & all cultures, societies, & religions recognize that. I maintain that the Code is the moral compass & the moral authority. "Let your conscience be your guide." We've all heard that over & over, from multiple sources, & it can't possibly be an American coloquialism. That little twinge in the back of our mind is the fist inkling that something isn't right.

If not the Code, what? Take the Code out of the moral equasion & all you have left is pontifications. Just somebody telling you what to do & how to think. It's impossible to codify all contingencies, so "Well nobody told me not to!" is the perfect excuse. There's no morals or ethics because the only rule is what's been publicly stated. Inversely, if you take the pontifications out of the equasion, you still have the Code. The morals & ethics are still intact & not confused by conflicting dogma. Religion can't be the moral authority, because the beliefs are not universal. The Code is. It's basic & couldn't be simpler. Nothing else works.

[SarahG]

The "Universal Code of Human Interaction" is my name for it.
The "Golden Rule" is English speaking western society's name for it.
I'm sure it's called a lot of different things around the world.

No matter. It's the same thing. Articulated, the rule states: "Treat other people the way you would prefer to be treated by them.", or more commonly "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.". It needs no articulation though. It's innate. Any time we violate the Code, we know. Automatically & instantaneously, we know. The common term for that in English speaking western society is "conscience". Everybody knows when they're being an asshole.

Nearly all people follow the Code most of the time & aren't even aware of it. It's not really something you have to think about. It's automatic. Whether it's malicious or just rash, you have to go out of your way to violate. This is our human nature that lots of folks like to talk about. You always hear about all the bad stuff that people do, & it gets attributed to human nature, but the reality is that those are anomalies. Real human nature is the day to day mundane following of the Code. It's part of the survival instinct. We're social critters who need that socialization or we don't crawl out of the cave. Hell, we don't even find the cave because we aren't well equipped to survive on our own. Compared to other critters, we're weak for our size, have no fangs or claws, & we're slow. Without numbers, we're just easy prey that goes extinct before we ever get started. Our conscience allows us to live communally without killing ourselves off, & that allows us to survive in the world of critters that actually do have fangs & claws.

I don't know for cosmic moral structure. We're not the cosmos. The theologians can argue that all they like. But we do have a moral compass, & all cultures, societies, & religions recognize that. I maintain that the Code is the moral compass & the moral authority. "Let your conscience be your guide." We've all heard that over & over, from multiple sources, & it can't possibly be an American coloquialism. That little twinge in the back of our mind is the fist inkling that something isn't right.

If not the Code, what? Take the Code out of the moral equasion & all you have left is pontifications. Just somebody telling you what to do & how to think. It's impossible to codify all contingencies, so "Well nobody told me not to!" is the perfect excuse. There's no morals or ethics because the only rule is what's been publicly stated. Inversely, if you take the pontifications out of the equasion, you still have the Code. The morals & ethics are still intact & not confused by conflicting dogma. Religion can't be the moral authority, because the beliefs are not universal. The Code is. It's basic & couldn't be simpler. Nothing else works.

I don't see how you can draw such conclusions based on human nature from a statistical approach like that.

Human nature is talking about biological instinct, not societal conditioning. Every time a human is found that had been in dramatic overwhelming isolation from being an infant onword, they are void of these characteristics.

Everyone may have a "conscience" (or not) but what triggers it is the result of social conditioning exclusively. There are cds that will tell you the first time they tried it their conscience was bothering them as if they had just committed a wrong, that doesn't mean there is a biological prewired conscience that tells people what right & wrong are (nevermind being so specific as to make people think "cding is wrong").

Sure there are common trends across various societies (past or present) but even if lacking a characteristic dooms a society to a fail, that doesn't mean that characteristic is biological or otherwise predetermined in origins.

[trish]

I can agree with SarahG to some extent. I think a lot of our socialized behaviors, good and bad, have to be learned. On the other hand, I also think we may also have evolved a biological disposition to empathize and a disposition to communicate. It seems dominance hierarchies in other mammals are innate rather than learned. It would be unusual if all human social capacities were learned rather than innate.

I agree with hippiefried, that it’s anomalous to want to be jerk or not care about being a jerk. On the other hand, I’m not optimistic about people knowing when they are being jerks. Even if our social evolution has hardwired us with a sort of Golden Rule, it’s not clear that there aren’t other hardwired or innate behaviors in conflict with it. For example the “tit for tat” strategy works quite effectively in optimizing one’s payoff in games where players can choose to compete or cooperate. It’s not too unreasonable, therefore, to suppose that if indeed there are innate human responses to social situations, then “tit for tat” would be among them. It’s seems to me that often people who are being jerks do not see themselves that way. When pressed they will defend their behavior by citing “tit for tat”. Israel retaliates against Palestinian terrorism. Palestinian terrorists are responding to Israeli occupation of their land. The land was of course given to the Israeli’s by God Himself and on it goes. Every one thinks they’re justified. No one thinks he’s being a jerk. Yet everybody is a jerk.

[hippifried]

Every time a human is found that had been in dramatic overwhelming isolation from being an infant onword, they are void of these characteristics.
Devoid of conscience or just overwhelmed by fear? There's only a couple of those. They lack social training, but I've seen no evidence that they lack a conscience. A better example is to look at young children themselves. Even upon first contact with their peers, when the inevitable conflict happens, both recognize any violation of the Code. Even if a child has never seen another child, if they do something to upset the other, their reaction is an immediate & visible remorse. That's not social training. The social training is in how they learn to deal with such situations & how to avoid them, but the recognition is innate. I'm thinking that social deprivation may be as much about social training as growing up surrounded by people. The brain develops regardless, & all humans have the ability to develop abstract thought. Such circumstances would necessarily create a different point of view from those who have socialized throughout their development. They would be devoid of social memes & dogma which is not the same as lacking conscience. They would create their own understandings of the world they live in, but do they create their own memes? Who knows?

Nature?
Nurture?
The interminable debate goes on, & on, & on & on...
My thinking is that although sociology adds a tremendous amount of technical data to the conscience, the base is already there. Otherwise there wouldn't be anything to add to. If it isn't out the realm of possibility that predominate gender characteristics are biologically innate, why would it be out of that realm that the moral compass that allows us to be the social critters we are could be innate also?

[SarahG]

A better example is to look at young children themselves. Even upon first contact with their peers, when the inevitable conflict happens, both recognize any violation of the Code. Even if a child has never seen another child, if they do something to upset the other, their reaction is an immediate & visible remorse. That's not social training.

I have to respectfully disagree with that idea. Even if a young child has had no contact whatsoever with other children (of any age) they still have gone through a period of socialization via their caregivers (parents etc) up until this point. It might not be socialism on the scale we usually think about, but it's there.

I haven't seen anyone able to make this observation (not saying it can't happen) as a universal concept for extremely young infants.

The older these infants are, the more socialization has had a part (even if it is a small part). Although I would be able to accept the idea that humanity is somewhat predisposed to buy into socialism along the lines of "don't hurt your brother," even at a young age but that doesn't mean a biological prewired determination. I can also foresee a function of the opposite (violent sibling rivalry).

To work from the other side of things (maladaptive actions, violence etc), I would not be surprised if the behaviors usually considered bad, evil, whatever are likewise the result of conditioning/socialization to a large degree, as a useful reaction. In a fucked up world where everyone is inclined to kill or mame you, it probably is an asset to be equally aggressive than to be alteri huic & passive. I am sure there is evidence to support this notion, profiles towards those who commit maladaptive acts often have a surprising level of accuracy in their commentary about the person's childhood & life experiences.

But neither of these wholly address the types of problems in society that got us on this tangent. There is, I believe, a subfiend of sociology & psychology to address groups & mobs. It can be entirely moot if the individual is even normally, as a biological instinct alteri huic if whenever banded in groups, the behavior is dramatically different. If anything mob violence and mass hysteria generated actions show at great length the way in which, in "societies" humanity is far from "naturally good" especially if these "group" actions are so universal despite differences in cultural & societal conditioning.

Related but not an example of mob violence or mass hysteria: There is that famous case, I think it was from Chicago or NYC where decades ago this girl was brutally attacked in front of a row of large apartment buildings in summer when everyone had their windows open. Everyone heard her screaming, but not a single person intervened or called law enforcement for her aid. I am sure their consciences bothered them the next day when they learned that she was never helped, but despite all the good intentioned people that existed in ear shot of the attack, everyone- even as individuals, assumed that someone else was already intervening or calling the police. "After all, it is a busy city, someone, MUST be doing something about it by now."

[BrendaQG]

Yes exactly. The above is...an example of why religions exist why they are important and why they have the rules they do.

Where people go wrong is when groups of people seek to enforce those rules themselves instead of through a legal process or leaving it up to god. (Because they hate people who do Y and they know that in most legal processes it's hard to prove that they did Y. i.e. here in IL it adultery has been a felony for long while (http://www.christianparty.net/adulterylaws.htm)).

[Tomfurbs]

Now feel free to conform to the Islamophobia of the GLBT community.


Criticising certain practices carried out in some Islamic countries is not Islamophobia.

Punishing homosexual activity is, however, very homophobic.

[SarahG]

Where people go wrong is when groups of people seek to enforce those rules themselves instead of through a legal process or leaving it up to god.

However just because the people want something, doesn't mean they should get it. Aren't most oppressive measures the result of the people demanding them? Certainly was the case with the inquisition.

In the US the legislation that is most inclined to pass without resistance are crime bills created by a beseeching general public, especially bills related to sex crimes. We were willing to abandon due process & double jeopardy for sex offenders long before terrorism was a political issue here.

Most people seem to readily agree that prohibition was a mistake, and that you can't regulate morality (just attacks on natural rights), but that is exactly what happens when regulations are heavily influenced by societal & religious norms or rules. I bring up rights because an individual walking over to someone's house and taking off with their possessions is an attack on their property rights, voyeurism an attack on their privacy, violence an attack on their person/health.... and so laws regulating such points are different from nation wide "you can't buy alcohol on sunday" law. Or "contraceptive is contraband because the Pope says its bad" or any number of similar things.

If you open the door to religious based regulation in a secular (as in the legal system) republic, you also open the door for that regulation to change with a change in population. We have the luxury of mostly being secular, materialistic in our day to day lives, even if there are large christian factions in certain states. If there is no separation of church & state, if religious rules & norms are thrown into the legal system than all it would take is a change in population to dissolve the nation's freedom of religion.

You don't have religious freedom when there is nation-wide enslavement to a set of religious doctrines on conduct. Just as it is no longer free speech to be mandated to say things for propaganda purposes (even if you happen to believe in those propaganda views & statements), it is no longer freedom of religion if you are forced to conduct your businesses based on religious rules, forced to give your kids a name common in the majority's religious texts, forced to send them to a religious school, and then abide by the majority's religion's rules and definitions of coital relationships.

The judicial system is no better from the mob when it is a tool of the mob. Our system is blatantly biased, both in present and historic contexts whenever we're dealing with a socially volatile issue.

Do you think middle aged white males are regarded in the system (on sex crime cases) no different from say, attractive young white female teachers? Do they have the same chances at acquittal? Are they punished similarly?

What about the trans accused (or in civil court, the trans party on either side)? What are their odds at being taken seriously, let alone be given a fair chance? If you had the choice of going to court known as a cis-girl or a tranny (without anyone being the wiser) which would you chose?

What worries me about the human rights watch article was not that the two who were put to death were tried in the legal system, but the references to due process indifference. I don't know all the facts in the case, and am not intending to blame the victim but what chance was there, that homosexuality became part of the case because the victim feared being labeled as a homosexual willing participant? Such things has happened before. In our own country's history how many girls avoided interracial relationship law by accusing a black guy with forced rape or assault? In this Iran case the act is wrong either way (the victim is underage for sex), but "the three of us had sex" is different from "if i say the three of us had sex I will be stigmatized as a homosexual so to save myself I will say that I was brutalized by two gay guys/adults." I don't know the details of the case in its entirely, that's why I said concern and not "disagreement"

Assuming that accusation was accurate, you yourself stated that it is the type of crime where you'd think about stoning the guilty parties to death... but it being an act that would encourage mob violence, or lynching poses the question of "how was the case itself handled?"

Did the police run around beating up anyone and everyone related to the case until they got what they needed to find the guilty parties & charge them? Did those in the judicial system give the two a fair trial or merely go "this act is disgusting" and immediately see the two as guilty before even hearing a word of evidence (for either the state or the defense)? There are numerous ways this could have gone wrong, and the article does mention that due process was a problem (but in the event that this is a biased source, I can't say the validity of those remarks).