It’s the standard passive-aggressive hostility of the religious:
Oh, it’s not me that hates you, it’s my god that hates you, I only follow my god’s wishes…
Trash.
My point precisely. Nobody speaks for all Christendom, least of all those who give gratuitous offense. Christianity was hijacked by Constantine and bears a heavy historical burden. However, there are those within the faith that do NOT accept the law of Moses. Jesus never spoke on homosexuality, and never condemned an individual. The New Testament’s concern with sexuality was focused on heterosexuals. I am personally pissed with politicians who pander to theological illiterates, use divisive tactics for personal gain and look the other way when anyone, gay or straight, is assaulted. Now, please, state your case against bigots, but do not condemn Christians who try not to be part of the problem and support gay marriage.
I don’t know. You tell me. My guess is that there a lot more than 3 religions in the world.
Yes, yes, you’re a unique and beautiful snowflake and all, but we’re talking something like ninety, ninety-five percent of Christians the world over being violently opposed to equality, so spare me the whole “not the REAL christians” shucking and jiving and let people talk about this problem without having to cater to the asterisked exception all the time.
Please see my upthread rant to Marley23. Christianity bears a heavy historical burden. Today it is still being perverted for political purposes. I acknowledge all of this. Some Christians are trying to focus on the teachings of Jesus. Gays can get married in some Christian churches. Call it convenient if you will. I can’t speak for or control all Christendom, either.
And how many people do they need to believe to make it right?
Well, me of course! 
Actually, she only has to wear a hat in church.
I think it is because patriarchal religions put a very large advantage to those sexual activities that lead to progeny.
That is why ‘Onanism’ is considered wrong.
These were a people who wanted to fight their opponents and conquerors by out breeding them.
It is a legitimate strategy given the circumstances of the time.
It is also a very difficult for a 21st century person to give credence to.
We are all lucky to have been born now and here.
I say this because I have gay friends of both genders.
Dearly loved and irreplaceable.
Of multiple races and combinations, thereof.
They love and live in this rather unstable environment of 21st century USA.
I will fight to the DEATH against some theocratic takeover, but I don’t expect such.
Some of my friends are waiting, quite literally around the clock, for the bad guys to attack.
I, am of course, not.
Most craziness dissolves into the mist. Hopefully, and with careful diligence, this will as well.
Do scientists like sit around and flatly declare that other scientists are not true scientists? I’m been seeing this sort of thing a lot in religion threads lately.
Actually, I think we’re both off-topic. Its a “why” question.
While many Abrahamic religions are hostile to gays and it’s likely that they’ve contributed to hostility to gays, perhaps the main reason they’re so closely correlated is something else.
When A and B are often seen together, sometimes it’s because A causes B, sometimes it’s because B causes A, but sometimes it’s because A and B are caused by C.
The correlation between hostility to gays and religions might in large part be due to this.
People who are tradition-oriented, want to keep things simple and homogenous and are unsettled by new social phenomena are likely to both be religious and hostile to gays.
Some people are particularly unsettled by change, different ways of doing things, the unknown, the future. Religion can be a way for them to suck their thumb.
Homosexuality, especially the way it’s becoming more accepted, is unsettling to many. It’s something they cannot relate to, it changes the way sex and family are conveived of. That can be scary to people, mainly the people who need to suck a supernatural thumb.
Also, if someone is freaked out by homosexuality, Abrahamic religious texts and tradition have ready-made arguments they can use to give their emotional opinion an objective veneer.
I think it’s time for your meds.
As seldom as possible, it often turns out badly.
“The fools! They called me mad! But I’ll show them, I’ll show them* all !!*”"
I didn’t say “religions”-I said “religious”.
Let’s be fair though, ‘pseudoscience’ and ‘woo’ are practically catch phrases on the Dope…and those are the polite terms.
I’m not sayin’, I’m just sayin’.
I once heard Stephen Fry talking about the Catholic church (though I think it applies more broadly as well), and comparing the relationship that it has with sex to the the one that an anorexic person has with food. I.e., won’t have any of it, but obsesses about it constantly. It think that’s pretty much spot on.
It could be a general conformity issue: everyone in the community salutes the same flag, speaks the same language, goes to the same church, attended the same school, cheers for the same team, and shares the same set of values.
If you open up the possibility that some people are straight and some people are gay and both are okay, then the community is acknowledging that it’s possible to be different. And that means it’s possible to hold different religious views.
If you’re the representative of one religion, you don’t want to acknowledge that other religions are equally valid alternatives. So you’re going to push for everyone to conform to one thing - not just in religion but in everything else as well just to reinforce the principle of conformity.
We’re talking about ancient societies that had a very clear demarcation between masculine and feminine behavior with the feminine being inferior to the masculine. Part of the problem with homosexuality between men is that one of the men will play the role of the woman (I know it’s more complicated than that). You don’t want your men behaving like women in those societies.
I know some people might wonder “Odesio, what about the Greeks? They had a clear demarcation between the masculine and the feminine!” True. They had institutions designed to control homosexuality and there were still plenty of insults directed towards those who engaged in passive homosexual activity.
Yes, from what I understand, the Greeks had the same view of homosexuality that prisoners do: If you top, you the man. If you bottom, you’re worthless.