1. “They must respect our traditions and culture!”
No. They don’t.
The identities, liberties and self-expression of a socially repressed minority are a bigger priority than the feelings of a repressive majority.
If such a majority chose to respect the minority, nothing would happen to their own culture or sense of identity; they are the majority, afterall. Not a single thing would happen to them even if the minority filled the streets with all their banners, and openly chanted their slogans for everyone to hear.
If the minority chose to “respect” the majority, then they would cease to exist as they are. They will have to compromise their identities, lifestyles, voices and autonomy.
This is why “respect” in this context is just a code word for submission; and those who demand submission are not entitled to respect to begin with, nor do they deserve it.
2. “Why can’t they just leave?”
Because they aren’t the problem. You are.
They shouldn’t have the pay the higher price for it, whether it’s through domestic discrimination or forced displacement.
One side simply wishes to exist – as openly as heterosexual people do – whereas the other side wants to actively deny that.
Just as Muslims resisted injustices that spanned from the days Qurayash up until the Patriot Act in the US, LGBTQ people have the right to defend themselves from censorship, imprisonment, displacement and / or the death penalty that exist today.
If you oppose their resistance to such injustices, then you’re inadvertently arguing that Muslims in the West should also succumb to Xenophobia and simply leave as well.
In which case, you wish to repress LGBTQ people in the gulf in the same fashion xenophobes wish to repress Muslims in the West.
3. “But the liberals are the ones imposing their LGBTQ agenda on us!”
The LGBTQ minority is not imposing anything on you unless they are forcing you to engage in same-sex practices yourself. They aren’t, whereas you’re enforcing your
own religious values over them.
If LGBTQ identities and practices were decriminalised, your (and the majority’s) right to practice your religion would continue to exist; the one difference is that LGBTQ people would also have the right to engage in their practices and identities as well.
In other words, you’re not the victim; as much as you might feel this way. This is a scenario where you seek to dominate a minority, and a minority is merely seeking to defend themselves.
As terrified as you are by a liberal bogeyman, LGBTQ identities and practices are apolitical and have in fact existed before politics.
The presence of LGBTQ Arabs existed before Islam and Christianity, for that matter; if anything, this suggests that they are more authentically arab than both major religions.
In fact, it was primarily the British who outlawed same-sex relationships in most of its Muslim, Arab and African colonies (Under “Section 377”).
Hence, you are the one who is actually upholding western colonial laws.
What you refer to as “liberals” and “agenda” are merely LGBTQ people standing up for themselves against the religious agenda that you wish to continue imposing over them.
Defending oneself from the majority
is justifiable when they are acting unjustly towards a minority, as the case was in the suppression of Muslims, and in the case of Islamic suppression of LGBTQ people today.
4. “If LGBTQ acceptance is OK. Does that mean you support r*pe and p*dophiIia too?”
Same-sex relationships between two consenting adults isn’t comparable with r*pe and pedophilia since the latter two neglect consent and rely on abuse.
In that sense, same-sex relationships have more in common with interracial relationships; which were also largely unpopular for the same reasons a lot of khaleejis oppose same-sex relationships today.
Who did actually tolerate r*pe and pedophilia, though? I can’t help but think of a specific religious figure who married an underage girl and supported the distribution of women and even more underage girls as sex slaves.
I’m just talking about Genghis Khan, obviously.
This only further strengthens the case for resisting against certain religious values.
5. “OK, but it’s like supporting incest”
The “incest analogy” has been repeatedly addressed and exhausted since the 80s.
1. The abuse of power dynamics is what makes certain relationships inherently expliotative.
2. There are no inherent power dynamics between two men solely on the basis of them being men (or women), whereas there are major power dynamics between parents and their children, older siblings and younger siblings. The most extreme example would (of course) be pedophilia, as there are massive power dynamics between an adult and a minor.
3. There are no genetic deformities or illnesses that exist purely on the basis that two partners were of the same sex. In the case of incest, the risk of inbreeding is inherent to the fact they are siblings (or cousins) in itself.
With all that said, it is actually religious khaleeji values that tolerate incest (between cousins) and marriages between minors and adults.
6. “But same-sex relationships spread diseases!”
There isn’t a single STD that is inherent to same-sex partnerships in and of themselves, since they can be contracted between partners of all sexes – whereas inbreeding is inherent to incestuous / cousin marriages, and unintended pregnancies are inherent to heterosexual sex.
If this isn’t regarded as a case against heterosexual partnerships in and of themselves, then the same standard must also apply for same-sex relationships.
In the same sense, this would be as irrational as to blame mosques for the spread of covid – in and of themselves.
In all cases, this only serves as an argument for better safety precautions.
Pre-exposure prophylaxis (or PrEP) is a highly effective medicine that is taken to prevent getting HIV, and HPV vaccines are equally as effective; they are now administrated for men and women of all ages.
That fact that our countries have neither says more about our countries than it does about LGBTQ people.
7. “But they are brainwashing children in cartoons and videogames!”
Children are exposed to cartoons and videogames with heterosexual themes as well, which aren’t cited as a problem (unless the content is explicit).
Hence, what you’re actually threatened by is the sole humanisation of LGBTQ people – because you know your kids would likely walk away from your values once they see their humanity.
Here is the catch, though: Your kids aren’t obliged to follow your values.
The same can be said about non-muslim kids once they see the humanity of Muslims, much to the dismay of their Islamphobic parents.
8. “But the LGBTQ agenda says people could be whatever gender they want to be, which makes no sense.”
This may be mind-blowing (brace up), but gender has always been separate from sex; and it has been this way for thousands of years (source cited below), just as the concept of “nationality” is separate from “ethnicity” today.
The latter is widely accepted today, and it isn’t considered “unbiological” nor “unscientific” to – for example – state that someone is “German” (Nationality), while they are of “Tamil origins” (Ethnicity); just as the term “German” could either refer to someone’s nationality or ethnicity, they term “woman” could either refer to someone’s gender or biological sex. Hence, prefixes come in handy.
The same can can be said about the term “mother”, which generally refers to women who birthed and raised a child. However, the term is also used to refer to adoptive mothers as well.
We tend to call both mothers, and use prefixes such as “adoptive mothers” and “biological mothers” in instances where this distinction needs to be made.
However, almost no one is on a crusade against adoptive mothers for “misusing language” – because most people are actually aware that similar terms can have multiple meanings.
In the case of gender identity, there has been over 4000 years worth of documentation of the terms being used interchangeably (and with prefixes) to relation to both gender identity and biological sex.
One social construct, whereas the other is biological. However, even “the biology” is not as linear as one may think.
In fact, MRI scans on 160 transgender people reveal more similarities to their gender identities than they do with their visible “sex”. (Source: Julie Bekker, University of Liege).
This is consistent with the overwhelming majority of studies on the subject matter for the past thirty years, including this paper – which cites up to 20 different studies; one of which is a mega-analysis.
9. “But they are mentally ill!”
That’s as absurd as to state that being intersex is a mental illness – which wouldn’t make sense, obviously – since being intersex is determined by an observable, physical difference in their anatomy (their genetilia), rather than just “chemical imbalance” that causes them to delude themselves.
The same applies to trans people who aren’t intersex, since the difference between trans people and cis people isn’t one of chemical imbalance – but one where their brain is observed to physically resemble their gender identities (from a young age); which implies that is their body turned out differently, and it isn’t their brain that is the issue.
In short: They are literally men or women with the body of another sex, just as intersex are men and women with the genetilia of another sex.
Despite these study, a lot of people would still like to cite the “high rates of mental illnesses among trans people” to discredit trans identity.
A disproportionate population of intersex people also suffer from numerous mental illnesses. Would that also suggest that being intersex is a “mental illness”?
Obviously not. It is a physical, observable condition the exists beyond the chemical functions of the brain; and it can come with psychological struggles due to numerous societal reasons.
The same can be said about trans people in relation to this study, as it showcases clear, physical differences between the brains of trans people and cis people – one that makes them physically and biologically (as far as the brain goes) closer to the gender identity – not a mere chemical inbalance that caused them to delude themselves.
By that argument, one might as well cite the fact that 50% of women and 40% of men suffer from mental disorders (source: NIHM) to argue that “cis identity is therefore a mentaI disorder” (or being American, for that matter)
The “Gender diverse cultures” map by PBS is an interactive map of all the cultures with multiple gender identities to this day.
The common ground among many of these cultures are the limited influences of “Judaeo-Christianity” (Primarily on Native American, African, Maori, and Asian tribes) which was one of the primary movements to strictly merge sex with particular gender roles and identities.
It is a far more recent transition.
To a lot of people, It sounds completely bogus that these two were ever separate, though it’s not anything new whatsoever.
10. “Yes but my religion represents objective morality, as it is the word of God. They must submit to it.”
Whether your god (Or Darth Vader) exists or not is irrelevant to whether others are obliged to worship him or forcibly submit to the values of those who do.
I’m just talking about Darth Vader, obviously.
Even if we were to assume that you are correct about his existence, it doesn’t sufficiently justify their positions against those who don’t wish to submit to his commands or the values of his followers.
LGBTQ people in Muslim nations and Muslims in Christian nations are both more deserving of their own dignity than anyone else is deserving of their submission.
A lot of people seem to equate the supposed existence of their god with the existence of
“objective morality” – even if we were to assume that he does exists, it has no bearing on whether his judgement is objective, just and rational or narcissistic, emotional (source: a couple of books he supposedly wrote) and deranged.
In all cases, those who don’t wish to submit to (ehem) Darth Vader or the comical values of his followers are fundamentally entitled to their autonomy and self-defense.
In conclusion: the vast majority of the khaleejis who oppose same-sex relationships think that the following is halal: 1. Marriage between a man in his 40s to an underage girl (a particular religious figure). 2. Sexual slavery.
Yet, they are convinced that they have more superior values than consenting adults in same-sex relationships.
11. “You didn’t have to write all this just to say that you’re gay and that you enjoy [explicit sexual act]”
I wrote this to say that I love all my Queer friends – many of whom probably do enjoy [explicit sexual act] with other Queer people.
I’m flattered, but I happen to be heterosexual (و العياذ بالله) myself – and you can stand up LGBTQ as heterosexual person yourself too – just as many people stand up for the dignity of Arab & Muslims though they aren’t Arab nor Muslim themselves.
All in all, those who oppose same-sex relationships will ultimately share the same fate as those who once opposed interracial relationships; irrelevant and forgotten in the dustbin of history.
Khaleeji Syndicate 