-3
$\begingroup$

In my world, there are magical humans often called wizards (their scientific name is Homo magicus) (so, they are still humans, just not Homo sapiens). They are traditionally a very religious race. Their society is a polytheistic theocracy and is divided in five castes: the highest one is the religious caste (which is composed of priests and priestesses, monks and nuns, and shamans).

In their society, some people who are LGBTQIA+ are sacred individuals. This is the case for transgender people, non-binary people, and genderfluid people. This is also the case for polyamorous people. Finally, this is also the case for bi people (biromantic and bisexual people), omni people (omniromantic and omnisexual people), and pan people (panromantic and pansexual people).

Many priests and priestesses are polyamorous and bisexual, or omnisexual, or pansexual (in this religion, priests and priestesses have the right to marry and to reproduce, and this is even encouraged). Many shamans are transgender, or non-binary, or even genderfluid. Many monks and nuns are aromantic, or asexual, or autoromantic, or autosexual, or abroromantic, or abrosexual.

So, I wonder why would LGBTQIA+ people be sacred individuals.

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
14
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ VTC:Opinion-based, mostly because of your answer. There's a kernel of a good question here, but questions on Worldbuilding must focus on rules, not stories. That means that we should be focusing on the creation of a religious doctrine within your mage society - except that the only information you've given us about them is that you're trying to include every possible politically-correct expression available today. Am I being mean? No, and to prove it I point out that polyamory may or may not, and probably isn't, an issue of physiology. In every instance I've ... (*Continued*) $\endgroup$
    – JBH
    Jun 29 at 3:37
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ ... I've ever heard of it's indistinguishable from any and all cultural acceptance. (The late Roman Empire period could be called uninhibited and is remembered for indulgences including polyamory... tough to prove it's genetic.) Frankly, you're putting the cart before the horse by crowbaring a list into the question that makes it many, many questions and there's a strict prohibition against asking more than one question. (So, VTC:Needs More Focus). I think a cool worldbuilding problem could exist here, but it's not here yet. $\endgroup$
    – JBH
    Jun 29 at 3:39
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The assumption that LGBT&c is genetic or even "a thing" presumes only the most recent modernity. It is true that there are a vanishingly small number of actual same sex attracted people and a similarly small number of people who truly suffer with some form of body dysphoria, The real number is probably less than 5%; yet in the 2020s, something like 25% of teens identify. Rather than work from the assumption of modern western culture, you'll need to approach this from a "rules of the world" perspective. How can you sustain a population in this situation? $\endgroup$
    – elemtilas
    Jun 29 at 14:09
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I've never heard the word "abrosexual" before. I presume it is for people who love their bros. "I love you, bro." et cetera. $\endgroup$
    – Daron
    Jun 30 at 5:20
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @elemtilas in nearly every society that does not kill them homosexuals make up between 12-16% of the population. from hunter gatherers to modern industrial societies. $\endgroup$
    – John
    Jul 21 at 23:57

5 Answers 5

Reset to default
2
$\begingroup$

Having children requires a biologically male-female pairing. Raising children requires a stable environment, which in many socities implies a monogamous relationship. In most but not all cases, LGBTQIA+ individuals do not meet both conditions at the same time (practicing B implies non-monogamy). So someone who embraces the LGBTQIA+ identity (rather than repressing it and identifying as hetereo) would remove themselves from the continuity of family and procreation.

Having formally recognized children could be important in a society where children are the main source of support for the elderly, or where they have religious duties towards the spirits of their ancestors (maintain the family shrine).

No children could be seen as a personal sacrifice, which makes them sacred.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ That could explain why the clerical caste would be encouraged/expected to engage in homosexuality. But the question also mentions bisexuals, omnisexuals and pansexuals, which are orientation which also have heterosexual relationships and thus would procreate. $\endgroup$
    – Philipp
    Jun 29 at 14:32
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Philipp, if legitimate offspring requires a monogamous relationship between the parents, then practicing bisexuals cannot have legitimate offspring. Only biological offspring, which may not count for social/ceremonial purposes. (Unless the society allows one "official" monogamous relationship with any number of "unofficial" extramarital affairs, but any number of fictional societies could exclude that.) $\endgroup$
    – o.m.
    Jun 29 at 16:41
1
$\begingroup$

They have Mighty Souls

The society is at its core less progressive than it seems. They view a homosexual man as a reincarnation of a woman's soul into a male body.This is the reason he fancies men. Because his soul is a woman. Likewise for transgendered people. They have souls that don't match their body.

As we all know, it is only particularly mighty and sacred souls that remember anything of their past life. Normal souls forget entirely and adapt to the gender and correct sexuality of their new body.

The fact this man is gay means he has a great old soul worthy of worship.

The situation is ironic. You get a society that worships gay people, because they have trouble accepting they exist. It might match the satirical tone of your book.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

some people who are LGBTQIA+ are sacred individuals

-- this has some important implications which you may have not realised. Being sacred is not a quality but a mark of ownership: specifically, a mark of being owned by God. Yes, in a legally binding sense these people are somebody else's property. (Rings a bell?)

That somebody else is believed by the (very religious, remember) society to be powerful beyond their ability to resist his anger. This would put sharp limitations on the sacred individuals' actions, place severe penalties on them if they ever transgress these boundaries, and may prevent them from ever becoming free.

Mind you, they may still be held in high regard by the society, at least as long as the divine favor remains evident. But there is also an undertone to this, dark by present-day Western standards, without which the story would be incomplete.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

In societies where LGBTQIA+ people are stigmatized, they usually refuse to "come out of the closet" so they won't become victims of discrimination. They force themselves into monogamous heterosexual relationships and into the clothes and roles of a gender they don't identify with. It's the smart thing to do, because otherwise these people would subject themselves to repercussions from a society that would not accept them the way they really are.

But when you create a society where people enjoy additional privilege due to their non-hetero sexual orientation or non-cis gender identity, then you will encounter the opposite problem: Heteronormative people will pretend to be queer so they can enjoy these privileges too.

So if you want to build an elevated social caste based on sexual orientation or gender identity, then you need some way to prove that people actually feel that way and don't just pretend to in order to get into the clerical caste. That means that if you want this to work, you need some form of "gaydar". A way to prove beyond reasonable doubt that someone is indeed LGBTQIA+ and not just pretending.

And if queerness can be objectively detected and measured, then you can also attribute other (real or imagined) traits to this mythical "queer-mojo" which make those people more spiritually connected and thus more suitable for a clerical career.

Or you can try it without and just take people's words for their identity. But then you might end up with a clergy full of pretenders. Just like the Catholic church that is full of people who pretend to live an asexual (or "celibate") lifestyle, but actually are not.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ Or full of people forced into that role so that they can't have children who inherit the family estates. $\endgroup$
    – David R
    Jun 29 at 14:14
-2
$\begingroup$

Transgender people, non-binary people, and genderfluid people could be considered reincarnations of martyrs (or any historical figures).

Poly people, bi people, omni people, and pan people could be considered morally better people, since they can romantically and sexually love more people than hetero/straight and homo/lesbian/gay people.

In the case of monks and nuns exclusively, aro and ace people, auto people, and abro people could be considered much better at not being disturbed by otherwordly emotions such as love for another person.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
2
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ Why should transgender, non-binary and genderfluid people specifically be considered to be reincarnated? Why is it "morally better" to have a wider range of possible romantic/sexual partners? Re your last sentence - how is love for another person an "otherwordly emotion"? (Did you mean "worldly"?) For that matter, isn't the whole point of persons who are celibate for religious reasons that their dedication overcomes their desires? On reflection, the complete lack of logic in all of the assertions does make this sound like a typical religion... $\endgroup$
    – KerrAvon2055
    Jun 29 at 4:08
  • $\begingroup$ But why would they be considered reincarnations of matryrs? $\endgroup$
    – Daron
    Jul 2 at 7:25

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .