Why does religion hate gays?

[Jon55]

@Czarcasm

If we combine the three, what percentage of the world’s religious would it encompass?

Well I never would have thought to call Judaism part of any big three but according to adherents.com it has a much smaller membership than I ever would have imagined.

Christianity 33%
Islam 21%
Nonreligious 16% *agnostics and atheists got thrown in together
Hinduism 14%
Buddism 6%
Judaism 0.2%

http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

[florez]

So I am getting that religion, with it’s roots in the ancient world, is negative toward homosexuals- out of a method of socially controlling the behavior of males. The low status of women was so all encompassing, that for men to be homosexual was to reach downward toward the feminine. Downward towards hell…again with the woman hating. Thank you everybody for clearing that up for me.

[robinson]

Oops - must have stepped on the party line.

[Czarcasm]

@robinson

Oops - must have stepped on the party line.

What are you talking about?

[robinson]

I understand that in Latino culture, the homophobia is focused on the receptor, which is consistent with your summary.

[Lightnin]

I don’t think that religion as a general rule hates homosexuality (except in very specific cases, like Leviticus, which apparently hates everyone as a matter of judicial expediency), but that religion is merely a tool which can be used to prop up any prejudice already held by the adherent.

The people who hate gays find that their religion can be used as an excuse for their homophobia. It’s a handy tool.

[Czarcasm]

@robinson

I understand that in Latino culture, the homophobia is focused on the receptor, which is consistent with your summary.

Will you please address by name the person you are responding to?

[robinson]

Sorry, Czarcasm, I thought the thread map did that. I was addressing latest post by Florez.

[Farmer_Jane]

@Saint_Cad

My son has been asking me about this, especially as it is cloked in religion. The problem is that a strict reading of Leviticus makes many things immoral.

It’s not immoral - it’s…er…treif. There’s a difference between being ‘spiritually unclean’ (or out of the tribal norm) and being a bad person.

People who say, “the laws in Leviticus just hate everybody!” are either joshing or a little ignorant imo.

[robinson]

@MichaelEmouse

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.

Relative to causation, I have seen several factors in this thread that would be mutually reinforcing (probably an incomplete list).

1. Personal (usually male) discomfort with the concept of homosexuality.
2. Unequal gender status leading to degrading of the receptor of either gender. Clearly self-reinforcing.
3. Evolutionary issues connected to preservation of the tribe through procreation. In this regard, there were a multitude of taboo cultures in biblical lands and times that did not survive. Some of these had clearly anti-evolutionary features such as occasional child sacrifice (which shows through in the story of Abraham and Isaac).

[florez]

@robinson

I understand that in Latino culture, the homophobia is focused on the receptor, which is consistent with your summary.

Thank you for your expert opinion on the Latino culture, where gay hating by christianity is uniquely
focused. As opposed to non receptor, with what other cultures? please explain.

[Johanna]

@Bryan_Ekers

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.

They laughed at Velikovsky! They laughed at Von Däniken! But I’ll show them! I’ll show them all! Mwahahaha

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Lightnin

I don’t think that religion as a general rule hates homosexuality (except in very specific cases, like Leviticus, which apparently hates everyone as a matter of judicial expediency)

Paddlin’ the school canoe? Oh, you better believe that’s an abomination!

[Kobal2]

@MichaelEmouse

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.

That’s the Romans. Extremely phallocentric culture. Dudes looooved the cock.

For the most part (there are a lot of conflicting accounts) the Greeks believed that it was OK, even desirable for an older man to fool around with a younger boy because that’s how young’uns learn, but improper for two grown men to consort at all. I don’t think they really went into top/bottom considerations.

[Sitnam]

@Kobal2

That’s the Romans. Extremely phallocentric culture. Dudes looooved the cock.

In Roman culture it was the catcher that was looked down on, a common joke saying for Caesar was ‘a man to every woman, and a woman to every man’. If he had simply like to put his cock in both it wouldn’t even have been a blip on scandal meter in Rome.

[DigitalC]

Religion is the excuse, not the reason. It is easier to excuse something when it’s backed up by “because god says so” than “because i am ignorant”.

[MichaelEmouse]

@Kobal2

That’s the Romans. Extremely phallocentric culture. Dudes looooved the cock.

For the most part (there are a lot of conflicting accounts) the Greeks believed that it was OK, even desirable for an older man to fool around with a younger boy because that’s how young’uns learn, but improper for two grown men to consort at all. I don’t think they really went into top/bottom considerations.

Did the younger one tend to receive and the older one to penetrate or was it a mix of both?

[Kobal2]

@Sitnam

In Roman culture it was the catcher that was looked down on, a common joke saying for Caesar was ‘a man to every woman, and a woman to every man’. If he had simply like to put his cock in both it wouldn’t even have been a blip on scandal meter in Rome.

Precisely. Hence phallocentric: as long as you’re the one with the active phallus, anything goes. Animal, mineral, vegetal, in this hole or that one or that other one, no worries.
But if you are not, what are you, some kind of *woman *?

I’m not kidding in the least when I say Romans were positively obsessed with the cock. You know how Eskimos have a hundred words for snow (no, they don’t, not really. Ask Cecil) ? There are apparently over 120 Latin words or stock phrases that all mean “dick”. True, every language in the world has a slew of expressions for it, presumably because penises are inherently giggle-worthy, but that’s above and beyond if you ask me.

To put this further into perspective for our readers, a fairly common motif for decorative pendants was a disembodied, throbbing bait & tackle. Sometimes it had wings. Sometimes each testicle had its own little boner.
Their enthusiasm for depicting the male genital organ is sadly only matched today by US Marines, and then only furtively, on latrine walls. Ancient Romans had giant mosaic dongs staring them straight in the face in their living rooms, they just didn’t care.

[Kobal2]

@MichaelEmouse

Did the younger one tend to receive and the older one to penetrate or was it a mix of both?

I’m not sure - like I said, they didn’t really get into the mechanical specifics.
At a semi-wild guess, judging by similar practices both current and past in other cultures, I’d surmise the older man did the boning but who knows ? Maybe the older one was supposed to let the young man practice penetration for a while before he had a go at the ladies for real, I dunno (women were commonly thought to have insatiable, overpowering sexual ardours in Ancient Greece).

[Bryan_Ekers]

Mr. Burns: I don’t know what “phallocentric” means, but no girls!

• I’ve always liked that line.