Beware uncontested opinions and norms

I just finished my first lesson for progress towards Senior Knight. I chose a topic entitled Religion and Homosexuality. And during this lesson, I was pushed to take a look at a fairly personal topic as I am gay. I worked hard to set aside what I "know" and look at what is and why it might be that way to the best of my ability. This meant setting aside emotional reaction and even automatic logical responses.

It's easy to look at religious rules against homosexual conduct and call them outdated, bigoted, tied to silly superstition. It's also easy to look at secular reasoning and call it foolish and that person a bigot. What I dont often see done is a critical look at why a religion might have such rules and why they may have changed. What I came up with is the following:

The strongest prohibitions against homosexual behavior appear to be from desert-dwelling faiths where population was an issue and the hygienic risks caused by male on male sexual contact are exacerbated by lack of water and an abundance of sand. ( Which if you look at it the most often named and biggest stigma attached to such acts tend to be male on male) This actually makes sense. If your people and thus tradition and religion can be wiped out by some other tribe fairly easily it makes sense to prohibit things that prevent breeding. Further knowing your people's lack of access to cleaning agents and water it also makes sense to bar things that add the risk of bacterial infection. In short distasteful or not at the time there was a logic to the prohibition.

If we move to Asian religions such as Buddhism, Taoism, and Sikhism the prohibitions are nowhere near as strong if they are there at all. In fact, it seems much more of a grey area that is tied to it being outside of the social norm or due to the act not leading to traditional family creation which was important socially in such areas. The act itself was and is not too heavily stigmatized depending on the era and sentiment of the day. In these areas, we know water and population is not an issue really. Thus we can see baring serious logical reasons they act might be stigmatized to a degree for bucking "the norm" but the same could be said for anything that is new or different.

From here we can see the trend today of a softening of these prohibitions in social and religious settings and the act and relationships that follow are coming to be seen as fairly normal. This comes at a time when the population is not a problem, traditions and religions cross borders, and modern hygienic methods and other factors decrease the health risks associated with the act.

So what did this teach me and why did I make this thread? It taught me to take a critical look at supposed "bigoted" rules in religion and society and ask why they might have been created. What is the logic behind them? Now I can disagree with the logic and new data can disprove it. But that does not change the fact that its very possible that such rules had a reason to them and were not just made up to be cruel to people.
I created this topic in the hopes of sparking discussion on other supposedly bigoted or mean rules/ideas that we know of and maybe the logic behind them. Because if we can search out the logic it can be defeated. Which is the first step to doing away with outdated laws and concepts.

That certainly is a view I have never considered before. It makes sense. Many of the religious rules were added in a way to help keep society civil and healthy. One question I had was about the hygene aspect. At the time these taboos originated we had no idea about bacteria or infections. Was it through correlation that these connections were formed?

JLSpinner wrote: That certainly is a view I have never considered before. It makes sense. Many of the religious rules were added in a way to help keep society civil and healthy. One question I had was about the hygene aspect. At the time these taboos originated we had no idea about bacteria or infections. Was it through correlation that these connections were formed?

It was guesswork on my part. Despite not knowing about bacteria we know that some acts made us sick. So if the people that engaged in such acts had UTI or other similar issues more frequently then those that did not it would be easy to assume this makes you sick. Which could be part of the reason such a rule was created. I do not know this to be fact but it was my own figuring out why this might have come into being

It seems sound enough in reason. I wonder if there is any supporting evidence to gleam from.

One lesson I've learned from gaming is that if you've gone a while without encountering an enemy (someone that opposes your views), perhaps you're going the wrong way.

Having grown up Christian, my parents also having grown up in another time (homosexual marriage was legalised in Canada when I was still young, 7-8?) and believed homosexuality to be evil, the result of literal demons whispering in weak persons ears.

Of course, why would my parents lie to their child? I believed them for quite a while... and looking back on my mind then, it disgusts me. I've since heard a single argument towards Christians in favour of homosexuality. "Are you really fighting against love, when that was the source of the greatest sacrifice for your salvation?"

Yes, my new views on such things were strongly against what my parents believe, and honestly they flipped their lids when they found out. But, looking back, it was prep for when I was to tell my family about this path, Jediism.

The path upstream is the harder path, full of struggle, but it is at the top of the river where growth happens. I admire those that are strong enough to openly love those they love. It's not easy, and its full of people that will hate them because they prefer going downstream, unopposed.

I admire those that are strong enough to openly love those they love. It's not easy, and its full of people that will hate them because they prefer going downstream, unopposed.

It's fashionable to be interested in various sexualities at the moment, and (depending on local political climate) fairly "safe" to be on the Love is Love team.


Great, and as good as example as any from Madhatter.

But the rule itself - Beware uncontested opinons and norms, has far more value than just that one example.

What else do we accept? what else do we just go along with?

Are we all happy to agree that socks and crocs are awful, without due consideration of the wisdom of those that wear them?

Perhaps make it a little game - As you go through your day (this could be easier or harder, depending on what you do for a living) and find 5 bizarre assumptions that you can't actually justify and no one can adequately explain.


(I can see someone starting with "Why should I have to wear trousers to work?" which may seem flippant, but really, cultural dress standards is one of the more common uncontested norms)


Perhaps it can be an article for our JediBlog -

"These 5 dumb rules you unquestioningly follow will amaze you!"

One lesson I've learned from gaming is that if you've gone a while without encountering an enemy (someone that opposes your views), perhaps you're going the wrong way.

Or you've found a sweet hack / wall to clip through and any moment now you're going to get to the finish with a perfect score!

I know it might seem like a dogmatic statement if I said there is a legitimate biblical reasoning behind it. Not religious per say. Still within what's called spirituality though.

It has somewhat of another alternative source as well. Still in the spiritual category. However, on the "other side of the fence". I've been reading an interesting book about the astral plane. By theosophists, so needless to say that they aren't exactly friendly biblical sources. However, their own research agrees with certain commandments.

Example, in the book, The Astral Plane by C. W. Leadbetter, there are certain sections that describe the potential negative effects of mediumship and seances on the practitioner and participants. Including the entities contacted. In Leviticus we see a direct parallel. In chapter 19 verse 31 it states, "Do not turn to mediums or necromancers; do not seek them out, and so make yourselves unclean by them: I am the LORD your God."

My reason for mentioning this is because while I do believe it was something that developed based on the disposition of the society at that time. However, I don't think it's was as simple as observations of population control. It may have more to do with a deeper type of observation. As to the reason it was called a "grave sin" towards the body. Their observations were of the pure "natural order" of the processes of Life. Homosexuality being an "improper use" of the fleshly body and a surrendering to its urges. As I'm typing this im thinking how this could go on to challenge the primacy of sexuality in relationships period.

To stick to subject though, there are certain kinds of "attachments", physical and not, that seem to negatively affect ones inner force development towards the light. One of which, sexuality, comes from the greater problem of rampant materialism. Not to say that these things make the person, but they affect the making of a person. This kind is somewhat separate from the inner person. As far as what REALLY can affect ones inner force development like seances. There are things, in "Darkness", that are far worse than both from what I've been reading...

Just wanted to offer my opinion on some things I've picked up on in my studies as they relate to these important topics..