In some languages, the snake has a female gender. I guarantee this is purely philosophical, my religion is certainly not christian identity, however, it seems as if your religous roots are struggling desperately against the Nation of Islam. How many of your familiy’s church, which you talk about, have been lost to Farrakhan and NOI? Perhaps their ewligion is inductory?
And now you appear to be posting in Cyrillic.
I’m a functional atheist. Most of my family’s Pentecostal. So far as I know, none of them have gotten involved in the Nation of Islam, and I cannot imagine anything I have ever written here or anywhere implying otherwise. Please put down the bong.
In my experience, many closeted gay men in the U.S. share this idea. As long as they are “tops” whether in anal or oral sex, their 100% heterosexual identity isn’t threatened.
And as others have pointed out, there’s a strong link between homophobia and rigid gender roles in general. It’s no accident that the women’s liberation movement and the gay liberation movement coincided, in the late 60s-early 70s.
The primacy of survival. Expanding the clan is of paramount importance. The bible has a lot of talk about spreading ones seed in fallow soil.
A WAG but I think it’s more a fear over one’s own sexual role rather than the role of the other. Men are not bothered by other men acting like a woman. They’re worried about them treating them like a woman. In traditional societies, men were considered the agressor gender and women were the passive receipients of sex. So men controlled sex - they decided when they wanted sex and women were expected to submit.
Male homosexuals threw this relationship off. They were, like male heterosexuals, seen as sexual aggressors but the targets of their aggression were other men not women. Heterosexual men were afraid that homosexual men would make them submit to sex and thereby reduce them to the sexual level of women.
It’s this subliminal fear that explains why lesbians and classical “eromenos” were never as reviled as adult male homosexuals: they weren’t potential agressors so didn’t threaten traditional gender roles.
If you include Romans 1:25-26, it’s pretty clear that the crime that Paul was talking about was idolatry, and God’s punishment was to change their sexual orientation. However, it is true that Romans 1:27 has been taken out of context to imply that Paul thought that homosexuality was a sin.
I’m curious, though, if Paul, who I believe was a Hellenistic Jew with Roman citizenship, would have travelled in areas where homosexuality was common.
Fear of deviating from prescribed sexual roles is not an explanation. That’s like saying, “People are homophobic because they are phobic of homos.”, it’s not an answer. The fear of homosexuality had to have been taught somewhere along they way, and must be rooted in something else. Too often these things are explained away as people being upset at deviation from prescribed role, but that ALWAYS begs the question.
What are they afraid of losing by deviating from those prescribed roles?
The bigotry of our age is that social roles we no longer value are byproducts of an unenlightened age. But that tells us almost nothing about the human condition.
I think that masculine superiority has been suggested directly or indirectly a few times, as something that is percieved to be put at risk by the existence of male homosexuals.
I suspect it is extremely relevent that the stigma against male homosexuals is far, far higher than the stigma against female homosexuals.
I am not sure, but I don’t think that explains homophobia you may find in non-Christian areas, like the Far East.
Sorry! I meant to quote and respond to fuzzypickles post # 9. Sorry!
I doubt that’s it. That makes it sound like the Alphas are threatened by homosexuality, which I think is the exact opposite of the way it actually is. Alpha males are benefitted by homosexuality as it removes competition for the choice females. There is no biological reason to assault the homosexuals unless they are trying FUCK YOU. If they just want to fuck each other have at it, I’ll go to war with that uppity silverback over there.
Pseudo-copulation, or fucking another male, is extremely prevalent in Mammalian populations, and most often is instigated by the Alphas in order to make the Betas their bitches.
So it might be that sodomy was proscribed in an effort to stop pseudo-copulation as a way of seeking a more just society. I imagine it’s intimately tied to the move toward monogamy. Monogamy maximizes genetic diversity in a small population as you don’t end up with all of the babies being the spawn of one or two Alpha males.
I’d imagine it also has a lot to do with the role of the males as the protectors of the females and the children. If their entire sexual lives are devoted to hedonistic sex for its own sake without any productive ends then they are not a positively contributing member of the tribe. If a male cannot produce an heir then he cannot pass on his legacy, he is not replacing himself and helping to grow the power of the tribe.
So sure, when you get into more complex patriarchal hierarchies male power comes into it, but I don’t think it has anything to do with feeling ‘threatened’ by homosexuals. For instance if I am a King I am only threatened by homosexuality if my son is homosexual and thus threatens to end my royal line through his behavior. That’s hardly the same as some sort of Freudian analysis of having to question my manhood when I see two men fucking each other.
Yes, that is relevant, but I don’t think for the reasons cited.
Or how about the parents who expect to be taken care of in old age? Combine this with strictly defined gender roles/expertise. If the gay son does not have a wife, then who is going to care for the household – including the elderly parents? Moreover, where are the children to help in the fields or continue the family business that will ensure resources to care for the elderly?
It’s not just about the tribe as a whole. It’s about children being the parent’s insurance policy for elder care in the future. A gay son reduces the web of family connections that would provide for widows, and whatnot.
Right, precisely.
‘Squicked-out’, theory is one of the least compelling theories I’ve ever heard, it’s amazing to me how many are willing to just stop there. That’s enough, people are made emotionally queasy by homos, well that’s all I needed to know!