Introduction
Anti-LGBTQIA+ rhetoric in Lebanon has surged in recent years, peaking in the summer of 2023 when politicians, religious leaders, and other influential figures united to reject the introduction of a landmark bill aimed at decriminalizing homosexuality. The proposal, introduced by opposition parliamentarians, sought to repeal Article 534, a colonial-era law that criminalizes “any sexual act contrary to nature.” While the bill did not seek to legalize same-sex relationships, it provoked fierce backlash from politicians across all fractions, leading to a nationwide campaign against LGBTQIA+ rights and freedoms.
This paper explores the intersection of nationalism, gender, and sexuality within Lebanon’s political discourse, particularly in its exploration of how anti-LGBTQIA+ rhetoric is leveraged by political leaders to reinforce national identity, assert moral authority, and rally public support. In Lebanon's fragmented political system, which is deeply rooted in sectarian divisions, nationalism often serves as a tool for uniting diverse groups, but this unity is rarely inclusive. Instead, nationalist rhetoric often reflects the values of dominant sects, and LGBTQIA+ issues are used to solidify this vision of national identity. By portraying homosexuality as incompatible with Lebanon’s religious and cultural heritage, political and religious leaders align anti-LGBTQIA+ sentiments with a broader narrative of national preservation.
This paper critically examines how nationalism shapes attitudes towards LGBTQIA+ issues in Lebanon, analyzing how anti-LGBTQIA+ discourse not only marginalizes queer individuals but also contributes to the formation of a national identity and political alliances. Ultimately, this paper argues that the framing of homosexuality as a threat to Lebanon’s social fabric reflects the intersectional use of nationalism to control cultural narratives and uphold traditional gender and family structures as central to the nation’s moral order.
The Lebanese Context
Gender, sexuality and the nation as an imagined community
Existing scholarship on gender, sexuality, and nationalism has explored how gendered symbolic representations contribute to the formation of national identity. Specifically, much attention has been given to the role of women as symbols of the nation and the ways in which hegemonic masculinity aligns with nationalist ideologies. , , However, the relationship between nationalism and the masculinities of non-dominant men remains underexplored in the literature, particularly in contexts where these identities are shaped by intersecting socio-political factors, such as religion, family structures, and homophobia.
Additionally, while the relationship between sexuality and national identity has garnered increased attention, there remains a significant gap in understanding how nationalism, religion, and homophobia intersect to influence attitudes toward LGBTQIA+ communities in the Middle East. Addressing these gaps calls for more nuanced analyses that consider the complex interplay between nationalism, masculinities, and sexuality, and how they collectively shape societal and political discourses within the region.
Kinship metaphors in Lebanese state policies
In Lebanon, kinship metaphors—the use of familial metaphors to shape national identity and reinforce social hierarchies—are deeply embedded within state policies and laws that restrict women’s rights and reinforce gender roles. A prominent example of is the metaphor of the nation as a mother, which is vividly expressed in Lebanon’s national anthem. The anthem depicts the country as a maternal figure, embodying qualities of care and nurture, which in turn reinforces the idea that women's roles are confined to the domestic and caregiving spheres of the family. Meanwhile, men are linked to the public sphere as protectors and governors, solidifying a gendered division of power.
Additionally, this constructs a heteronormative vision of Lebanon and its national identity, marginalizing those who do not adhere to the traditional sexual norms upheld by the nation-state. The intersections of gender, nation, and sexuality in discourse establish rigid roles for men and women, tied to dominant ideals of masculinity and femininity. Consequently, the nation is constructed as inherently heterosexual, and those who diverge from this binary are not only marginalized but often actively excluded and stigmatized, perpetuating systemic inequalities.
The metaphorical use of kinship to define national identity, especially in political rhetoric, has a profound impact on societal cohesion. Kinship idioms within nationalist ideologies possess the political power to make “certain differences appear natural”, thereby reinforcing societal divisions. Anderson (1983; 1991) argues that nationalism functions similarly to kinship, operating with concepts of sameness and difference that mirror the dynamics of human relationships. This connection is reflected in the metaphorical use of kinship within nationalist discourses, where it serves to construct national identity by making certain differences appear natural.
Just as Anderson suggests that colonial racism serves the interest of upper-class nationalism, kinship idioms within nationalist rhetoric operate as a tool for maintaining elite power by reinforcing divisions and excluding those considered “different”, particularly racial and sexual minorities. Similar to how racism serves bourgeois nationalist interests, kinship-based exclusions help consolidate the dominance of ruling elites—such as political and religious leaders—who benefit from sustaining a narrowly defined national identity. By invoking kinship, these elites create a sense of belonging for some while marginalizing others, thereby preserving existing social hierarchies and preventing solidarities that might challenge their authority. This intersectionality—where race, gender, and sexuality converge—reveals how nationalist rhetoric uses kinship to deepen societal divides, ensuring that power remains in the hands of the privileged few.
Homophobia, othering, and national identity in Lebanon
The portrayal of homosexuality as deviant fosters an “us” vs. “them” distinction, marginalizing those who deviate from the dominant narrative of shared identity within the imagined community. Foucault’s analysis of sexuality reveals that regulation extends beyond repression; it involves defining what is considered normal and abnormal, a process intricately tied to national identity. For example, Kanaaneh demonstrates that Palestinians collaborating with the Israeli army are usually labelled as “sexual deviants,” regardless of their sexual orientation. This suggests that disloyalty to the nation is often linked to their “questionable sexualities.” Such rhetoric illustrates how sexual norms influence individual identities and serve as mechanisms for enforcing loyalty and conformity within national discourses.
In Lebanon, this dynamic is particularly evident in political and religious discourse, where LGBTQIA+ individuals are frequently cast as threats to national cohesion. Despite the country’s deep sectarian divisions, the Lebanese state has long relied on patriarchal structures to create an appearance of national unity, with these structures often anchored in heteronormative family ideals. Homosexuality is framed as a disruption to these ideals, positioning queer individuals as outsiders within the national collective. For example, religious leaders and conservative politicians often portray queerness as a sign of moral and cultural decay, reinforcing the belief that sexual nonconformity is fundamentally opposed to Lebanese values. This framing functions as a mechanism for internal regulation—policing the boundaries of acceptable citizenship—and as a tool to unify segments of the population against a common perceived enemy.
Calhoun argues that nationalist rhetoric serves more than just the purpose of fostering internal unity; it is also used to differentiate a nation from the political dynamics of other states on the global stage. He posits, “claims to nationhood are not just internal claims to social solidarity, common descent, or any other basis for constituting a political community. They are also claims to distinctiveness vis-a-vis other nations.” This perspective holds particular relevance in Lebanon, where homosexuality is often framed as a foreign or Western phenomenon.
Several Lebanese politicians have accused the West of imposing its LGBTQIA+ agenda on the Lebanese population, asserting that such efforts threaten the country’s cultural and religious values. The 2023 anti-LGBTQIA+ crackdown, led by Lebanon’s minister of interior, was directly justified by this rhetoric, with officials claiming that defending “traditional values” was essential to protecting the nation from foreign cultural intrusion. By presenting homosexuality as a Western imposition, these politicians not only reinforce traditional norms but also rally their supporters against a fabricated external threat.
Ironically, the very framework that Lebanese policymakers uphold as a defense against Western influence is itself a product of colonial rule. Under the French Mandate, European family structures were imposed as the societal ideal, entrenching heteronormative gender roles—many of which Lebanon continues to uphold through its retention of colonial-era personal laws. This contradiction lies at the core of Lebanon’s social landscape: the rejection of so-called foreign ideologies is, in reality, shaped by the enduring legacies of colonialism. One of the most enduring remnants of colonial influence is the introduction of Western sexual categories, which reshaped how same-sex practices were understood in Lebanon and the broader region.
Before colonial rule, many societies operated with fluid, non-binary conceptions of sexuality that did not fit into the rigid Western distinctions between heterosexual and homosexual. Rather than being seen as indicators of a fixed identity, same-sex interactions were often understood through social roles, status, or behavior. In Ottoman-era Lebanon, sexuality was not rigidly classified as “homosexual” or “heterosexual” in the modern sense; instead, same-sex desire were understood through the lens of social hierarchies and power relations. However, the colonial introduction of Western legal and medical discourses on sexuality redefined these expressions, pathologizing same-sex desire and imposing fixed sexual identity categories.
Research Methodology
This paper employs Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) to examine statements made by Lebanese politicians and religious figures, focusing on how language conveys, justifies, and reinforces social power, inequality, and exclusion. By adopting a politically engaged approach to discourse, the research aims to uncover and challenge the mechanisms through which homophobia is normalized within Lebanese society.
Specifically, the analysis follows Fairclough's three-dimensional framework for examining language and power, which situates discourse within its textual, discursive, and social contexts. Purposive sampling was used to select statements from a range of political and religious representatives across Lebanon, demonstrating that homophobic rhetoric is not confined to a specific sect but is embedded in a broader cultural system that shapes national identity. While anti-LGBTQIA+ rhetoric has long been a feature of Lebanese public discourse, this study focuses on statements made during the national backlash against proposed legislation to abolish Article 534, limiting the analysis to the period between July and September 2023.
These statements emerged in a highly volatile political and economic context, with Lebanon experiencing an inflation rate of 268.78% in 2023, exacerbating widespread poverty, financial instability, and social unrest. The country has also faced a presidential vacuum since October 2022, leaving critical governance issues unresolved and deepening institutional paralysis. Against this backdrop, politicians and religious figures have intensified their anti-LGBTQIA+ rhetoric, positioning queer individuals as a societal threat and scapegoating them for Lebanon’s broader crises.
However, while activists and experts—such as Tarek Zeidan, director of the first LGBTQIA+ organization in the MENA region—argue that this rhetoric serves as a distraction from national turmoil, reducing anti-LGBTQIA+ discourse solely to an attempt at political diversion risks oversimplifying the issue. Homophobia in Lebanon is deeply rooted in the country’s social, religious, and political structures and is not merely a byproduct of economic collapse. Even in times of relative stability, LGBTQIA+ individuals have faced systemic discrimination, legal persecution, and social exclusion. The state and religious institutions have long relied on heteronormativity as a pillar of national identity, using morality-based arguments to enforce patriarchal control and delineate the boundaries of acceptable citizenship.
Thus, while economic and political instability may amplify homophobic rhetoric as a tool for deflecting blame, it is not the sole driver of anti-LGBTQIA+ policies and discourse. Rather, the targeting of queer communities is an extension of entrenched ideological frameworks that position sexual nonconformity as incompatible with Lebanese identity. This suggests that even if Lebanon were to achieve economic recovery and political stability, the structural forces sustaining homophobia would persist unless directly challenged.
The sample featured 25 statements from Lebanese political and religious figures, spanning ministers, parliament members, legislators, and clerics, including a speech by Hassan Nasrallah. Politicians represented various parties, such as the Amal Movement, the Azm Movement, the Armenian MP bloc, the Free Patriotic Movement, Hezbollah, the People’s Movement, the Progressive Socialist Party, the Renewal Bloc, the Strong Lebanon Bloc, and an independent candidate. Statements were also issued by bishops, sheikhs, and the country's Mufti and Patriarch, the highest religious authorities in Islam and Christianity, respectively. Additionally, one statement came from the Christian militia group “Soldiers of God,” which, despite lacking formal political or religious status, embodies the heteronationalist sentiments prevalent among a significant portion of the population.
The statements were collected, translated into English, and published by Megaphone News, a Lebanese independent media platform. Megaphone News has reported extensively on the political elite’s homophobic campaign, including three iterations of what the platform refers to as a “List of Shame: Homophobia edition.” Additionally, the Al-Manar website, which hosts Hasan Nasrallah’s speeches, was used to analyze his rhetoric surrounding homosexuality.
Discussion and analysis
Our analysis of statements from Lebanese political and religious figures revealed several key themes, with religion and morality emerging as the most frequently cited.
Religion and morals
Religion was invoked in 15 out of 25 statements (60%), with political figures responsible for 9 of these, underscoring the deep entanglement of religion and politics in Lebanon. Notably, 9 of these 15 statements (60%) were made by political figures, highlighting the deep entanglement of religion and politics in Lebanon. The vocabulary used included terms and expressions such as “church,” “demons,” “satanic,” “devilish acts,” and “Sodom and Gomorrah NGOs.”
Several Lebanese officials justified their campaigns against LGBTQIA+ individuals by emphasizing that homosexuality is a “major sin.” For instance, the minister of interior Bassam Mawlawi declared, “Anyone afflicted with homosexuality was destroyed by God. God ruined everyone afflicted with homosexuality.” Others labelled it “satanic” and “devilish,” with one MP invoking the biblical imagery of Sodom and Gomorrah.
The statements also highlighted the growing influence of religious figures and institutions in shaping Lebanese politics. Muslim and Christian leaders united in their campaign against homosexuality, declaring their commitment to “cooperate in fighting the phenomenon of targeting divine religions and morals through the promotion of homosexuality…” (01/09/2023). Father Abdo Abou Kasm, the head of the Catholic Media Center, explicitly stated that “the church opposes abolishing the constitutional article that criminalizes homosexuality” (08/10/2023). Additionally, Sheikh Hassan Merheb, the assistant inspector general of Dar Al-Fatwa, issued a fatwa urging the Lebanese people’s “religious and moral duty” to boycott MTV following its airing of an advertisement supporting the LGBTQIA+ community.
Moreover, some statements conflated religion with national identity, as articulated by one Father, “The state, the church, and the partners in the homeland all have a say” (07/18/2023). A statement from “Soldiers of God,” a Christian militia group originally formed to defend “Christian land against Islamist peril” by targeting Palestinian and Syrian refugees , has since shifted its focus to protecting “Christian land” from homosexuality. Following an attack on a drag show hosted by an LGBTQIA+-friendly bar in Gemmayze, a predominantly Christian neighborhood in Beirut, their statement declared, “Gemmayze rebels against moral decadence and expels demons from its streets, because this is the land of the Lord, and there is no place for you among us, O spawn of Satan!” (08/24/2023). This rhetoric demonstrates how religion can intertwine with national identity to create an exclusionary narrative that marginalizes citizens based on their sexual orientation.
Society and the family
The second theme that emerged from the analysis links homosexuality to fears regarding the disintegration of the family and Lebanese society. Of the 25 statements examined, 7 (28%) explicitly raised concerns about how the normalization of homosexuality could impact the family and society. Terms like “disintegrating,” “destroying,” “dismantling,” and “collapse” were used to describe the potential consequences, instilling fear among the Lebanese public that decriminalizing homosexuality would lead to the unravelling of Lebanese society. By framing the family and society as endangered, officials appealed to the public’s sense of loyalty to their country and community. This narrative also served to unite a divided society, as seen in Hassan Nasrallah’s statement, “This is not a battle for a political party, or a sect, or a region. This is a battle for society as a whole, Muslims and Christians alike” (07/22/2023).
Feminist theories on sexual autonomy argue that governments regulate citizens’ autonomy to maintain social order, reinforce gender hierarchies, and control populations. Gosine further argues that “nations must always be heterosexualized to ensure the reproduction of citizens, just as they must also be racialized and gendered to ensure the construction of national boundaries and bodies.” This framework highlights how the regulation of sexuality and gender is integral to constructing national identity and upholding political power. In Lebanon, the regulation of sexual autonomy plays a significant role in preserving the sectarian system, where family and religious norms help reinforce political divisions. The state’s resistance to LGBTQIA+ rights is presented as an effort to protect the integrity of the family, a cornerstone of Lebanon’s sectarian structure, which relies on traditional gender roles to sustain its political dynamics.
However, in light of Lebanon’s ongoing economic crisis and the increasing trend of immigration, the state's focus on preserving family values begins to appear increasingly superficial. Since 2019, Lebanon has faced profound social and economic instability, and the family unit, once seen as a source of societal cohesion, is under significant strain. The state's insistence on defending family values amid such crises seems less about preserving social order and more about redirecting public frustrations. Rather than addressing the root causes of Lebanon’s instability—tied to the country’s economic mismanagement and sectarian power struggles—the state’s discourse shifts blame onto marginalized groups, particularly LGBTQIA+ individuals. This rhetoric thus serves as a scapegoat, providing a convenient target for public frustration during a time of national uncertainty.
A tool for othering
The third and final theme that emerged from the analysis is the repeated use of “othering.” This rhetoric highlights the creation of two distinct “us vs. them” mentalities: one that categorizes homosexuals as fundamentally different from the rest of the Lebanese society, and another that positions Lebanon and the region in opposition to the rest of the world, particularly the West.
In the first instance, the language used to describe homosexuality was charged with terms such as “unnatural,” “deviation from the natural order,” “abnormal,” “licentiousness and debauchery,” “profanity,” “heinous and obscene acts,” and “deviant”. These terms served not only to delegitimize homosexuality as an unnatural sexuality but also to stigmatize it as profane and morally corrupt. For example, Mohamed Mortada, the Lebanese minister of culture, initiated the hashtag #Lebanon_and_homosexuality_are_opposites_that_do_not_meet, which reinforced the political elite’s view of homosexuality as something alien to Lebanon’s national identity.
In the second instance, the rhetoric shifted to a broader geopolitical context, with terms like “region’s identity,” “Western powers,” “they are trying to—,” and “global project.” While only a few politicians explicitly referenced the West, Nasrallah devoted much of his speech to blaming the United States for promoting an LGBTQIA+ agenda that contradicted Lebanese values. He stated, “America exerts pressure on a group of Arab and Islamic countries to incorporate homosexuality into children’s school curricula. This is happening in the Gulf countries. What would you call this? This is sowing corruption” (08/04/2023). Similarly, Hagoz Terzian remarked, “We will not just fold our arms as the region’s identity changes under a slogan that does not take into account the morals of the area and its people, who are role models of moral values and culture” (08/24/2023).
Both statements exemplify the ‘us vs. them’ mentality, distinguishing Lebanon and the region from Western nations BY portraying Lebanon as morally superior and incorruptible due to its rejection of homosexuality and the Western LGBTQIA+ agenda. By invoking such rhetoric, Lebanese officials effectively ‘other’ those who do not share their political ideologies, both domestically and internationally. In this context, the fight for LGBTQIA+ rights in Lebanon becomes not just a struggle for acceptance but a battle for survival against the backdrop of rising intolerance, threatening the fabric of a diverse and inclusive society.
Implications
The anti-LGBTQIA+ rhetoric from Lebanese political and religious figures has profound and dangerous implications for both individuals and the broader LGBTQIA+ movement.
Firstly, this rhetoric has emboldened efforts to criminalize homosexuality more explicitly. On August 16th, 2023, MP Ashraf Rifi introduced a bill proposing 1 to 3-year prison sentences for individuals and organizations promoting homosexuality. Although Article 534, which criminalizes “unnatural sexual relations,” has historically relied on judicial discretion, creating some legal ambiguity, Rifi’s bill aims to solidify anti-LGBTQIA+ persecution by codifying it into law. This would remove any remaining legal gray areas, resulting in an increased risk of arrest, harassment, and imprisonment for individuals simply existing as queer. For the LGBTQIA+ movement, this shift represents a direct challenge to advocacy efforts, restricting public organizing and making legal protection even harder to attain. Subsequently, activist groups and human right organizations would face heightened surveillance, forcing many to reconsider their strategies or go underground to avoid state repression.
Secondly, religious leaders’ rhetoric has contributed significantly to the pathologization of homosexuality, deepening societal stigma. On July 18th, 2023, Sheikh Khaldoun Oraymat described homosexuality as “a disease” that requires treatment. This rhetoric not only perpetuates harmful misconceptions but also legitimizes practices like conversion therapy and other coercive measures aimed at “curing” queer individuals. For those LGBTQIA+ individuals, increases the likelihood of family-imposed or religiously sanctioned attempts to “correct” their identity, often resulting in severe psychological trauma. The normalization of this harmful discourse also weakens the broader movement by delegitimatizing its cause and making it harder to advocate for LGBTQIA+ rights as fundamental human rights. When queerness is framed as an illness, LGBTQIA+ activists are no longer seen as defenders of human dignity, but as challengers of social and religious “norms,” making it easier for their opponents to silence or dismiss their efforts.
Perhaps the most immediate and dangerous consequence of anti-LGBTQIA+ rhetoric is the incitement of violence. On July 22nd, 2023, Hassan Nasrallah explicitly called for the killing of homosexuals, a statement with immense weight given his influence and the wide reach of his audience. This type of rhetoric does not exist in a vacuum; it emboldens individuals who already harbor anti-LGBTQIA+ sentiments, legitimizing acts of violence against queer people. This significantly heightens their risk of physical harm, forcing many into hiding or prompting them to seek asylum abroad. Meanwhile, the broader LGBTQIA+ movement faces increased challenges in maintaining visibility. Public organizing becomes even more dangerous, as activists must weigh the risks of being targeted for merely speaking out. Additionally, the fear stirred by such rhetoric may result in the silencing of voices within the community, with individuals and organizations prioritizing their safety over activism.
Conclusion
In Lebanon, the intersection of nationalism, religion, and anti-LGBTQIA+ rhetoric profoundly influences societal attitudes and the experiences of sexual and gender minorities. As harmful narratives persist, there is an urgent need for strategic advocacy and allyship to challenge them.
One realistic way to counter anti-LGBTQIA+ rhetoric in Lebanon is by shifting the narrative through discreet advocacy. This can be achieved by creating safe spaces for dialogue and community-building, especially in areas where public discussions about LGBTQIA+ issues are deemed unacceptable. Such spaces could include private forums, closed social media groups, or events that promote LGBTQIA+ visibility while avoiding direct confrontation with the legal system.
Another key strategy is focusing on legal reform through strategic advocacy that operates within the existing legal framework. LGBTQIA+ organizations can press for incremental changes such as the decriminalization of same-sex acts in certain private spaces or push for the establishment of policies that protect LGBTQIA+ individuals from discrimination in the workplace or healthcare settings. Rather than seeking a complete overhaul of laws, these smaller victories can serve as stepping stones, gradually shifting public perceptions and legal protections for LGBTQIA+ people. These efforts could be complemented by international pressure and collaborations with global organizations to support the local LGBTQIA+ movement while avoiding direct conflict with Lebanon’s legal system.
Lastly, education, while constrained by societal norms, can also serve as a tool for change in more subtle ways. LGBTQIA+ groups can collaborate with civil society organizations, human rights groups, and allies to incorporate inclusive language and materials into non-formal education programs. These programs could target specific communities, such as parents, teachers, and healthcare workers, helping to shift prejudices and provide better support for LGBTQIA+ individuals in everyday life. By emphasizing the importance of respecting diversity, these efforts can help create a more supportive atmosphere for LGBTQIA+ people in Lebanon.
The views represented in this paper are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Arab Reform Initiative, its staff, or its board.
