BeaStKid Posted September 6, 2007 Posted September 6, 2007 Genghis Khan first to ban gay sex Chinese researchers have republished the code of laws proclaimed by the legendary Mongolian warrior Genghis Khan, which is probably the world's earliest that banned homosexuality. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Genghis...how/2324555.cms The BeaStKid
Bondwriter Posted September 6, 2007 Posted September 6, 2007 I'm not sure you posted this article from Science Daily; on the contrary, it tells about civil unions being legal six centuries ago.
Benji Posted September 6, 2007 Posted September 6, 2007 I'm not sure you posted this article from Science Daily; on the contrary, it tells about civil unions being legal six centuries ago. .....Both equally interesting articles, but the argument will go on forever. And of course Alexander The Great had a legion of gay fighters?
Caipirinha Posted September 6, 2007 Posted September 6, 2007 And of course Alexander The Great had a legion of gay fighters? Alexander the great? You mean Alexander the FABULOUS!!
Benji Posted September 6, 2007 Posted September 6, 2007 Alexander the great? You mean Alexander the FABULOUS!! ..........Pity he didn't leave memoirs!
D Writes Posted September 6, 2007 Posted September 6, 2007 ..........Pity he didn't leave memoirs! Yeah... Sigh! And he even came to India. Wish he could have left his "fabulous" memories here
Benji Posted September 6, 2007 Posted September 6, 2007 Yeah... Sigh! And he even came to India. Wish he could have left his "fabulous" memories here .............Well if I rely on my crusty world history, he was the greatest conquerer of all time.
Bondwriter Posted September 6, 2007 Posted September 6, 2007 Actually, Gengis Khan is deemed the greatest conqueror of all times. Alexander and Napoleon are contenders.
Benji Posted September 6, 2007 Posted September 6, 2007 Actually, Gengis Khan is deemed the greatest conqueror of all times. Alexander and Napoleon are contenders. .......Did I mention my crusty world history?
AFriendlyFace Posted September 7, 2007 Posted September 7, 2007 An interesting article. I thought that part that theorized his motivation for banning gay sex to be a desire to expand his population was especially interesting. I'm certainly not saying I agree with it, but I do understand it. In fact I've always naturally assumed that this was also the motivation for any possible prohibition in Biblical times. It does somewhat make sense for an endangered population with a high mortality rate to actively encourage all of it's members to procreate. What I do take issue with is that this strategy has in many cases failed to evolve. We are not in any danger of running out of people. Quite the opposite, I would much more readily argue for a strategy that would discourage people from reproducing prolifically (obviously I wouldn't endorse any such law since I think it would be a major violation of civil rights, but in general it would be a good idea for people to curb their population growth). Anyway, IMO if anything they should be giving us medals for usually not reproducing naturally and instead in many cases adopting/looking after kids that others can't handle/don't want. Don't get me wrong, I definitely intend to be a parent, and while there's a good chance I'll opt to adopt I may look into other options for having kids biologically, but in any case at this point the world doesn't need me to reproduce biologically. Nor does it need the children of any of my GLBT brothers and sister nor the offspring of my straight cousins who don't want kids. That phase of our history is over, and unless there's a major worldwide disaster or we decide to colonize outer space, I don't see it coming again. The other article was excellent as well! It's good to know that French society had made arrangements for non-traditional families Just my opinions, take care all and have an awesome day Kevin
CarlHoliday Posted September 7, 2007 Posted September 7, 2007 An interesting article. I thought that part that theorized his motivation for banning gay sex to be a desire to expand his population was especially interesting. I'm certainly not saying I agree with it, but I do understand it. In fact I've always naturally assumed that this was also the motivation for any possible prohibition in Biblical times. It does somewhat make sense for an endangered population with a high mortality rate to actively encourage all of it's members to procreate. Of course it's all about making more babies. Most of Biblical Law is about keeping people alive (you can die from poorly cooked shellfish and pork, so don't eat them, put them on the banned list) and ensuring every guy does his duty and makes babies. If the husband dies, the wife goes to the brother who makes more babies. It's all about fertility. Homosexual acts go against fertility and have to be banned. It's bad enough when you go down to the local pagan fertility temple and waste your seed, but to mess around with a member of your sect, both of them are wasting their seed and the whole suffers. Carl
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now