Why do religions hate gays so darn much?

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

It’s true. I never said “ The world was gay”

Although, it certainly was less homophobic. Our current culture of ‘no homo’ is a fairly knew and extreme thing.

I think this is because the idea of homosexuals being a distinct class or orientation is relatively new. Whereas before, even if it were considered a sinful act, it was just considered something people might do rather than considered an actual state people were born into. The latter is the reality, but religious anti-homosexual thinking still seems to stem from the idea that it's an act that can be controlled/avoided rather than an intrinsic pat of someone's sexuality.


The problem with these debates is there's always one side arguing about the act and the other side arguing about the orientation. Two completely different frameworks to view the issue from, and unless agreement or consensus can be reached , I don't see any major resolution to these type of debates happening any time soon. That said, I would hope that once a majority of religious fundamentalists were able to accept that orientation is usually just a result of how people are born, they might be less likely to see homosexuality as some agenda that people can be converted into following. I know some more progressive churches have adopted that view, so I think there's some hope for the more conservative denominations.

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

And even if it is determined that orientation is more fluid than rigid, in which case religious people might feel vindicated in their view that it's a choice and not an inborn trait, I think the real problem in our culture isn't gay people's orientation but rather a general slide toward acceptance of promiscuity and treating sex as a very casual act, regardless of whether hookup culture is becoming a thing in gay or straight communities.

The religious people whining about the breakdown of family and the tradition of marriage should turn their sights away from issues like gay marriage (seriously, no religious person has ever logically explained how allowing more people the right to marry will somehow destroy the institution of marriage) and instead toward the growing trend of casual hookup culture that trivializes sex. The latter (promiscuity) seems to be a legitimate threat to monogamy and marriage. But if someone can explain how homosexuality threatens marriage and monogamy, I'd love to hear it, because I have yet to hear a good argument beyond the typical slogans such as 'Gerd derdn't make adam and steve. derp derrr derrrr'. Ultimately I think the people who argue the former are just pissy that people they find disgusting are getting to play with the same toys and play the game by the same rules they've traditionally been playing with.

 

[Yuurei]

I think this is because the idea of homosexuals being a distinct class or orientation is relatively new. Whereas before, even if it were considered a sinful act, it was just considered something people might do rather than considered an actual state people were born into. The latter is the reality, but religious anti-homosexual thinking still seems to stem from the idea that it's an act that can be controlled/avoided rather than an intrinsic pat of someone's sexuality.


The problem with these debates is there's always one side arguing about the act and the other side arguing about the orientation. Two completely different frameworks to view the issue from, and unless agreement or consensus can be reached , I don't see any major resolution to these type of debates happening any time soon. That said, I would hope that once a majority of religious fundamentalists were able to accept that orientation is usually just a result of how people are born, they might be less likely to see homosexuality as some agenda that people can be converted into following. I know some more progressive churches have adopted that view, so I think there's some hope for the more conservative denominations.

Yeah, I agree with your reasoning in the first paragraph. It was just something people did-or did not.

I have no interest in debating anything having to do with homosexuality. My only ‘side’ is an Anthropology major who get’s very irritated when people misrepresent history to push their own agenda Humanity is vast, greatly varying, and spanning over more ten thousand years. Trying to say that it was ‘all’ one way or another so that it fits single person’s myopic viewpoint is...dangerously unconstructive in further understanding our own existence and on a personal note, very aggrivating.

Edit: Apologies for some VERY unfortunate typos. I am a bad typist but not THAT bad. My iPad is very old and the keypad is fucked. It leaves out entire sentences, chop up words it doesn’t understand, replace letters with numbers and 5row ( throw) in random punctuation. =/

 

[FemMecha]

And even if it is determined that orientation is more fluid than rigid, in which case religious people might feel vindicated in their view that it's a choice and not an inborn trait, I think the real problem in our culture isn't gay people's orientation but rather a general slide toward acceptance of promiscuity and treating sex as a very casual act, regardless of whether hookup culture is becoming a thing in gay or straight communities.

The religious people whining about the breakdown of family and the tradition of marriage should turn their sights away from issues like gay marriage (seriously, no religious person has ever logically explained how allowing more people the right to marry will somehow destroy the institution of marriage) and instead toward the growing trend of casual hookup culture that trivializes sex. The latter (promiscuity) seems to be a legitimate threat to monogamy and marriage. But if someone can explain how homosexuality threatens marriage and monogamy, I'd love to hear it, because I have yet to hear a good argument beyond the typical slogans such as 'Gerd derdn't make adam and steve. derp derrr derrrr'. Ultimately I think the people who argue the former are just pissy that people they find disgusting are getting to play with the same toys and play the game by the same rules they've traditionally been playing with.

To that I'd say, "Well of course he did. Just because he didn't make them first doesn't mean he didn't make them." Also this is actually Adam and Steve...

Also, if you really want to go hardcore on the Adam and Eve story, who did their children marry and procreate with? hmmm? Each other or perhaps some apes or mom and dad? Suddenly the whole "Adam and Steve" thing starts seeming a less shocking as a whole "God's plan" kinda thing? hmmmmmmm

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

Also, if you really want to go hardcore on the Adam and Eve story, who did their children marry and procreate with? hmmm? Each other or perhaps some apes or mom and dad? Suddenly the whole "Adam and Steve" thing starts seeming a less shocking as a whole "God's plan" kinda thing? hmmmmmmm

Someone at some point got the idea that allegorical parables needed to be interpreted literally, word-for-word.

I actually find Genesis to be one of the more entertaining books in the bible, and there's some good parables throughout the bible that can still be taken as valuable lessons and/or loose retellings of history.

People on either side of the atheist vs religious debate get so hung up on the fine details, rather than the big picture and the themes and meanings. The flood story is a good example, with people debating its validity based on every little detail mentioned in the book, but I don't think it was meant to be taken so literally. It's obviously a loose retelling of the era during which the coasts were gradually flooding during and following the last ice age. No surprise that very similar stories popped up in multiple ancient cultures' lore passed on by word of mouth. It's the same source/events the Atlantis myth likely came from. Considering most ancient civilizations resided along coastlines or major waterways such as rivers, then the gradual flooding and recession of coastlines that took place would have appeared to these peoples as a major cataclysm, possibly as a world-ending event. Atlantis existed, it was everywhere major settlements were. Noah did exist, he's an avatar for every person who might have been aware of the flooding and taken measures to survive or escape the flooding.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

The religious people whining about the breakdown of family and the tradition of marriage should turn their sights away from issues like gay marriage (seriously, no religious person has ever logically explained how allowing more people the right to marry will somehow destroy the institution of marriage) and instead toward the growing trend of casual hookup culture that trivializes sex.

 

[The Cat]

And even if it is determined that orientation is more fluid than rigid, in which case religious people might feel vindicated in their view that it's a choice and not an inborn trait, I think the real problem in our culture isn't gay people's orientation but rather a general slide toward acceptance of promiscuity and treating sex as a very casual act, regardless of whether hookup culture is becoming a thing in gay or straight communities.

The religious people whining about the breakdown of family and the tradition of marriage should turn their sights away from issues like gay marriage (seriously, no religious person has ever logically explained how allowing more people the right to marry will somehow destroy the institution of marriage) and instead toward the growing trend of casual hookup culture that trivializes sex. The latter (promiscuity) seems to be a legitimate threat to monogamy and marriage. But if someone can explain how homosexuality threatens marriage and monogamy, I'd love to hear it, because I have yet to hear a good argument beyond the typical slogans such as 'Gerd derdn't make adam and steve. derp derrr derrrr'. Ultimately I think the people who argue the former are just pissy that people they find disgusting are getting to play with the same toys and play the game by the same rules they've traditionally been playing with.

What's wrong with hooking up and casual relationships?

 

[Tellenbach]

No, that’s wrong. It’s VERY wrong, in fact it could n’t be much further from the truth.

Many of the oldest religions were matriarchal or Polytheistic.

What of religions today? What percentage of religious folks belong in a matriarchal religion? There are roughly 2.3 billion Christians, 1.8 billion muslims, 0.9 billion Hindus, 0.535 billion Buddhists, 0.5 billion atheists, 60 million Voodoo adherents, 10 million Scientologists, 1.5 million Wiccans, and a handful of Satanists. The world population is 7.7 billion.

Which matriarchal religion is considered homophobic?

 

[Tomb1]

Religion peddles in ignorance. The Ancients had their pagan Gods, but there was definitely a lot of intelligent shit coming out of the Greco-Roman world. Today, over a billion people on earth believe that virgin birth and human resurrection are biologically possible. Oh, and the universe is 10,000 years old. This, of course, is all rationalized as divine inspiration, "anything is made possible if God wills it"...that's like telling a little kid Santa can deliver so many presents in one night because he freezes time.

Philosophy is placid, but science really fucked religion up.

 

[EllevenSevenSounds]

If this were a true statement then the contrapositive must also be true, which is false, therefore this statement is false.

 

[EllevenSevenSounds]

What's wrong with hooking up and casual relationships?

Speaking from the point of view of someone who once shared this philosophy, a collection of STD's on my **** can attest to validity of a counter argument. I don't have anything too serious from my casual sex days but I do have several strains of HPV and I have herpes.

 

[Peter Deadpan]

Speaking from the point of view of someone who once shared this philosophy, a collection of STD's on my **** can attest to validity of a counter argument. I don't have anything too serious from my casual sex days but I do have several strains of HPV and I have herpes.

How would you know you have several strains of HPV? There aren't any tests for HPV in men.

 

[EllevenSevenSounds]

How would you know you have several strains of HPV? There aren't any tests for HPV in men.

Well, it's unconfirmed but the girls I used to fuck around with in college told me that they had it. Considering that we fucked frequently as we were just friends with benefits I live assuming that I probably have it, and some of my friends too.

 

[EllevenSevenSounds]

Well, it's unconfirmed but the girls I used to fuck around with in college told me that they had it. Considering that we fucked frequently as we were just friends with benefits I live assuming that I probably have it, and some of my friends too.

It's very common now to have at least 3-6 strands of HPV floating around out there. If you have sex with 7 people unprotected your chances of contracting one strand is 80%. This is why I wish I still had my purity.

 

[The Cat]

just because one hooks up does not mean one does so indiscriminately.

 

[Peter Deadpan]

Well, it's unconfirmed but the girls I used to fuck around with in college told me that they had it. Considering that we fucked frequently as we were just friends with benefits I live assuming that I probably have it, and some of my friends too.

I think something like 80% of adults who have had sex have HPV. Men live without symptoms unless they have a strain that causes warts. Women get PAP smears to test for irregular cell changes that could lead to cancer.

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

Don’t really wanna elaborate on my issues with hookup culture and why I think it’s bad for civilization because there’s that part of me that believes in live and let live, and since I had my share of hookups when younger, it would just make me a hypocritical old fart.

 

[Lady Lazarus]

Because they're e6.

 

[I Tonya]

Hm, because it's doctrine is influenced by satan and his kingdom.

Personally, if I enjoy the individual I do not care about their orientation.

 

[Totenkindly]

I have a lot I could say (and might have, earlier in the thread -- I don't feel like looking back through)...

... but I remember one of the most hypocritical things being when gay people on TV became more like celebrities, like with RuPaul's Drag Race or Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, and i remember being really surprised at how many evangelicals actually would watch these TV shows and excitedly talk about them and even use them (like Queer Eye and similar) for their clothing styles ideas or house decorating things... or talk about their "gay friend at work" if they had one, like it was some kind of status symbol or some secret kind of subversion on their part. This is also an era that had the "gay friend" become a trope in film, or a show like "Will & Grace" became very popular even among churchgoers.

...While at the same time actively voting against gay people's rights to get married and maintain a stable home, or adopting and raising children, and maintaining that they were still going to hell if you pressed them on it. And that somehow they were reprobates even in a committed relationship over time, while excusing straight promiscuity. (Meanwhile we still see high-ranking evangelicals arrested for sexual abuse of children, high rates of divorce, downplaying sexual discrimination and abuse of women, etc. Heck, we even have a guy fired as president of a Christian college for not dealing with sexual assault now legally defending a lip-service-Christian POTUS who has been accused on sexual assaults for years and it continuously being dismissed by the evangelical community even when prominent Christian publications try to expose the issue.)

I'm still angry about it years later, after they had to be dragged kicking and screaming into an era of same-sex marriage being permitted in the USA. Certain states are as we speak STILL fighting claw and tooth for the ability to prevent gay spouses from adopting children and other ways to keep same-sex marriages "less than" opposite-sex marriages. The church is a joke in this country, in this day and age, because of its inability to see the forest for the trees, to understand its own limitations, to grasp it doesn't hold a flawless understanding of truth, and a lack of actual love for those who belong to other tribes than their own. This is just the "circle the wagons" kind of bullshit ultimately, and unwillingness to understand what a diverse culture actually looks like or acknowledge their own flawed behavior.