Why do religions hate gays so darn much?

[Kanra Jest]

There's a lot going on about this. I have mixed feelings in some respects , but overall I believe in individual rights and we should just be able to do (within reason) what we want without all this crap. Not because I think it's "Right" or "Wrong" but because like.... Why shouldn't there be more important things to focus on?? Why are we still on this shit whether we should have freedom to do things or not? And the more this shit happens I kinda feel the more tightly ridiculous rules get into place maybe living life just more difficult like with all the extremists, namely. We should focus on more of a big picture but evangelicals are focused on enforcing all details of their bible (well excluding the"law" but it still kinda seems like there's a law to me but okay) instead of just focusing on "love" and "grace" like should be. Like the bigger picture should be a greater importance for the country than these damn tiny minute things that we still can't let go of. And I'm sure the problem also is that any time you say it's not "wrong" not only will the bible be quoted, but they'll claim it's a demon spirit, and there's no way to wiggle out of it cuz everything is from an ENTIRELY different warped boxed in perception that only goes one way. So it's virtually impossible to even argue with it. Quite tedious. Why not just focus on necessities like freedom and safety, and protecting ourselves from outside threats and such, rather than dividing and becoming a whole bunch of inside threats bickering and angry with each-other in their own country cuz no one can ever agree on anything and regardless of the separation of church and state it's still a thing clearly.

I'm biromantic but in love with someone of opposite sex so I suppose I "get a free pass" cuz of not doing the action god forbid. But if I loved another guy who knows. Should one ignore a part of oneself? Shifting everything onto "morals" of a book written ages ago which BTW has pagan and egyptian roots in it as well is just entirely tedious and unnecessary

I'd rather be more efficient. But admittedly the SJW feminazi type politics lately are equivalently aggravating. Not cuz of the content so much as the division it causes when we needed unity.

We need something to unify us, but we're all pulling apart to extreme levels still. Never grew past it. And it's not simply a moral issue but more importantly a rational issue. In my mind.

Basically this whole world is a circus and people don't know who they are anymore. Both new and old ways are taken to extremes that are only destructive.

 

[Totenkindly]

We never really had "unity" in the past.
It was simply forced compliance to the majority view.
For example, minority views were ignored or only accepted after a lot of social turbulence and prolonged conflict.
(Civil rights took a century to go from the Civil War to the 1950's, and MLK was disapproved of for a long time.)

With the social opinions changing, what we have is now a minority view that is still trying to maintain its power. So the cracks are going to continue to widen.

I'm not really sure what would unify us, since we've never been unified before except in our rebellion from England (I wonder if England was thinking, "Why don't they just stop fighting and remain unified with us?") and pretty much no one is willing to bend at this point.

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

But admittedly the SJW feminazi type politics lately are equivalently aggravating.

That whole wave is receding though. Cultural revolutions seem to take place in 10 year periods (roughly), usually reaching the peak around the 5 year mark. 2015-16 seems to be when the "SJW" thing really peaked. It's been on a steady decline since then. Don't let the whole MeToo thing exploding in 2017-18 fool you--that was a sign the movement was already on the decline, rather than on the incline. It was a backlash more than a frontlash.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

That whole wave is receding though. Cultural revolutions seem to take place in 10 year periods (roughly), usually reaching the peak around the 5 year mark. 2015-16 seems to be when the "SJW" thing really peaked.

Oh, that makes sense. Donald Trump was proof of how ineffective their entire approach really was. It only really worked on guilty white liberals (and only then up to a point). It turned out it was useful for creating a circular firing squad atmosphere and not much else.

I supported the goals of the movement, but their tactics were shit. It was full of obfuscating academic jargon, for one thing. Any successful mass movement has to be intellgibile to most people; if the default response to people asking for clarification is "it's not job to educate you", the movement will certainly fail at that. Sociopolitical movements are not the proper place to show off how smart or educated (or "woke") you are, not if you want them to be successful.

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

Oh, that makes sense. Donald Trump was proof of how ineffective their entire approach really was. It only really worked on guilty white liberals (and only then up to a point). It turned out it was useful for creating a circular firing squad atmosphere and not much else.

I supported the goals of the movement, but their tactics were shit. It was full of obfuscating academic jargon, for one thing. Any successful mass movement has to be intellgibile to most people; if the default response to people asking for clarification is "it's not job to educate you", the movement will certainly fail at that. Sociopolitical movements are not the proper place to show off how smart or educated (or "woke") you are, not if you want them to be successful.

I think that too often they confused the trivial (microaggressions, what some comic said in their stand-up special, etc) with legitimate injustices. Of course their critics focused on the trivialities, and to the average independent voter or moderate, they got the impression the left was a bunch of college students trying to limit speech. It's kind of unfortunate. There's legitimate injustices like trump trying to ban transgenders in the military, but it seems like that type of issue or complaint got overshadowed by a focus on idiots like Caitlin Jenner's "bravery". Whoopty doo, she got a makeover.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I think that too often they confused the trivial (microaggressions, what some comic said in their stand-up special, etc) with legitimate injustices. Of course their critics focused on the trivialities, and to the average independent voter or moderate, they got the impression the left was a bunch of college students trying to limit speech. It's kind of unfortunate. There's legitimate injustices like trump trying to ban transgenders in the military, but it seems like that type of issue or complaint got overshadowed by a focus on idiots like Caitlin Jenner's "bravery". Whoopty doo, she got a makeover.

Well "microaggressions," "privilege", and "appropriation," is just the kind of thing I'm talking about by academic jargon. People didn't exactly know what they meant, or they don't like what it sounds like they mean. And it's not like they could ask for clarification either ('It's not my job to educate you'). It also didn't help that, ludicrously, class was not factored into discussions of privilege, which might be an important thing to factor in.

 

[Coriolis]

Well "microaggressions," "privilege", and "appropriation," is just the kind of thing I'm talking about by academic jargon. People didn't exactly know what they meant, or they don't like what it sounds like they mean. And it's not like they could ask for clarification either ('It's not my job to educate you'). It also didn't help that, ludicrously, class was not factored into discussions of privilege, which might be an important thing to factor in.

Those words may be jargon, having picked up considerable charged baggage, but what they apply to is real. I do agree it is best to spell out clearly what you mean, so there is no/less confusion.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Those words may be jargon, having picked up considerable charged baggage, but what they apply to is real. I do agree it is best to spell out clearly what you mean, so there is no/less confusion.

I'm not claiming it isn't real, but what people would do is throw around these concepts and apply them and accuse others of them without ever really clarifying what they mean, and in fact, treating requests to clarify as another microaggression (I should note that Trump supporters also ask people to "educate themselves" when pressed for evidence that he's really a swell guy) . I'm not really sure what any of that was supposed to accomplish. I think people just did it because it made them feel in control in certain situation for a brief period of time (which is understandable, but it doesn't seem to accomplish much in the long term.)

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

I'm not claiming it isn't real, but what people would do is throw around these concepts and apply them and accuse others of them without ever really clarifying what they mean, and in fact, treating requests to clarify as another microaggression (I should note that Trump supporters also ask people to "educate themselves" when pressed for evidence that he's really a swell guy) . I'm not really sure what any of that was supposed to accomplish. I think people just did it because it made them feel in control in certain situation for a brief period of time (which is understandable, but it doesn't seem to accomplish much in the long term.)

I don't think a lot of the people tossing the terms around even knew what they were talking about. Hence responding that it's not their job to educate others--they couldn't really articulate the concepts and just felt good using them as epithets before patting themselves on the backs for being the wokest in the room. I think a professor of sociology or women's studies could probably better explain the terminology and meaning. However, it was often pop opinion piece articles in media publications, likely written by people who didn't have a deeper grasp on the terminology, or angry students at rallies caught on youtube videos who I was seeing using using these terms. Sargon of Akkad and his like aren't all that smart, they just had a lot of low hanging fruit to pick.

 

[rav3n]

I don't think a lot of the people tossing the terms around even knew what they were talking about. Hence responding that it's not their job to educate others--they couldn't really articulate the concepts and just felt good using them as epithets before patting themselves on the backs for being the wokest in the room. I think a professor of sociology or women's studies could probably better explain the terminology and meaning. However, it was often pop opinion piece articles in media publications, likely written by people who didn't have a deeper grasp on the terminology, or angry students at rallies caught on youtube videos who I was seeing using using these terms. Sargon of Akkad and his like aren't all that smart, they just had a lot of low hanging fruit to pick.

A lot of the negativity towards equality was amplified by Breitbart/Milo/Bannon/Russia through Gamergate, as their testing ground for the 2016 election interference.

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

A lot of the negativity towards equality was amplified by Breitbart/Milo/Bannon/Russia through Gamergate, as their testing ground for the 2016 election interference.

They were given a vast orchard with the lowest, ripest fruit.

 

[rav3n]

They were given a vast orchard with the lowest, ripest fruit.

With this in mind, perhaps you can analyze your perspective and consider how this amplification has affected your own thought processes.

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

With this in mind, perhaps you can analyze your perspective and consider how this amplification has affected your own thought processes.

:mindblowngif:

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I don't think a lot of the people tossing the terms around even knew what they were talking about. Hence responding that it's not their job to educate others--they couldn't really articulate the concepts and just felt good using them as epithets before patting themselves on the backs for being the wokest in the room. I think a professor of sociology or women's studies could probably better explain the terminology and meaning. However, it was often pop opinion piece articles in media publications, likely written by people who didn't have a deeper grasp on the terminology, or angry students at rallies caught on youtube videos who I was seeing using using these terms. Sargon of Akkad and his like aren't all that smart, they just had a lot of low hanging fruit to pick.

I think that makes a lot of sense. If they did know what they were talking about, why couldn't they articulate it? Somebody telling me to "educate myself" when asking for more information (without even providing me with links or books I could read or anything) isn't really convincing me they're any more educated on the subject than I am.

A lot of the negativity towards equality was amplified by Breitbart/Milo/Bannon/Russia through Gamergate, as their testing ground for the 2016 election interference.

There's also the implosion of the New Atheist movement that happened just before that. I'm pretty sure that fed into Gamergate, as well. If other forces were involved, they probably took advantage of tensions that already existed. I should also note that the last time I played video games was in 2011. I didn't even know what the fuck Gamergate was until a few years after it happened.

 

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

(traditional) Religions deal with spiritual aspects as its highest aim. If you were to imagine Maslow's hierarchy modified for a religion, God would be at the top of the hierarchy, and God = Spirit.

So, you have everything else proceeding downward from the top, like a waterfall. God ---> Creation ---> Nation ---> Community (Church) ---> Family ---> Individual, more or less. This is why the Garden of Eden was traditionally depicted as a mountain, and the gates of Eden were at the bottom of the mountain. So, Adam and Eve were kicked off the peak of the mountain to the bottom.

So, sexuality is kind of a low-order concern. It's not very high on the list, honestly. It's actually near the bottom with the animalia, the animals who rely almost entirely on instinct for their daily needs. They don't have the knowledge of good and evil, basically.

Sort of like this below - (I hope I'm able to get across the basic idea)

(Top) God: Logos, Spirit, consciousness,
morality, ethics, reason, etc.

l
l
l
l
l
l
l
(Bottom) Animals: Chaos, Flesh, instincts, "nakedness",
unconsciousness, unreason, etc.

So, since sexuality is ranked as a low-order...proclivity that even the lower animals can do easily: eat, drink, defecate, urinate, sleep, procreate (sex), it's sort of...regulated like a dietary law, for instance, or defecation law, there's some regulation to it. We don't pee on our kitchen table or our neighbor's front porch, etc. And in ancient times, homosexuality, being such a minute portion of sexual behavior (Sex is already ranked as a low-order activity, and homosexuals are a minority who practice a peculiar form of that low-level activity), I guess it seemed easier to regulate it due to the behavior being revolting to straights, and just being such a queer behavior to behold. So, it's not really that homosexuals were targeted for regulation, it's more like a wide net of things were targeted due to social cohesion and to minimize the spread of disease, which is why you have the whole thing with shellfish and pork because those foods tend to spread bacteria the most if not prepared right. etc.

So, there's probably (more than likely) many theists who can't necessarily articulate this idea, but they just dislike gays on an animalistic "gut-instinct." They can't really explain why they dislike gays, they just do because "the Bible says so" which is animal-talk for "I don't really know, but I need to justify my bigotry somehow." There's certainly that, but for me (and certainly many others), it's more like sadness. The same sort of sadness I feel for an obese person, because that person likely has trouble controlling the passion to overeat (another *unchecked* basic instinct), they lack self-discipline and will power, and if they were to ask for help, I'd certainly do so. I see homosexuality the same way. And homosexuality isn't the only regulation on sex. General promiscuity among straights are equally regulated, and when I see promiscuous people, I feel equally saddened for their slavish dedication and lack of discipline with the instinct. Fapping to porn is equally condemned as low-tier behavior as promiscuous sex is whether it’s straight or gay. Fappers just haven’t figured out a good civil rights argument to marry their right hands, yet.

It's kind of a crash course and incomplete in this form.

 

[Mind Maverick]

This was forever ago but Kas clearly wasn't saying "all religion is against homosexuality," as they had already stated "As there are people who are both gay and religious I don't understand your question."

It's a shame Kas was so misunderstood on this thread.

 

[Mind Maverick]

Frankly, it's just the carrying on of traditions. We don't know why they were so against it back when the Bible was originally written, but to religious people nowadays it's very simple...
a) Sin is evil
b) Homosexuality is considered sin in Bible
Therefore, a + b = "homosexuality is evil."

Unfortunately, a lot of people condemn "sinners" despite the Bible also saying this is wrong.

Others interpret the Bible as saying that Jesus did away with all of that and it's okay to sin, it's just human, all is just forgiven; they tend to be more relaxed about homosexuality a lot of times.

 

[Red Memories]

Frankly, it's just the carrying on of traditions. We don't know why they were so against it back when the Bible was originally written, but to religious people nowadays it's very simple...
a) Sin is evil
b) Homosexuality is considered sin in Bible
Therefore, a + b = "homosexuality is evil."

Unfortunately, a lot of people condemn "sinners" despite the Bible also saying this is wrong.

Others interpret the Bible as saying that Jesus did away with all of that and it's okay to sin, it's just human, all is just forgiven; they tend to be more relaxed about homosexuality a lot of times.

Just wanna say as a Christian:
1. Homosexuality in biblical times was like the word for "tramp" or the s word today moreless. Someone having sex for the sheer sake of having sex.
2. The old testament discussions actually involved Jewish law of...well who you were allowed to bring into your bed when married. bring another dude you defiled the bed. Christians don't follow Jewish law to a T so...?
3. Personally I feel all the verses refer to lust rather than being gay, and I have combatted well enough on my arguments got some very anti-gay marriage people to actually say I had a point, although they were agreeing to disagree.

also I struggle with calling every single Christian who finds gay to be a sin homophobic...I personally feel like these types of believers are using religion as a mask for their bigotry, but at the same time some Christians feel the way they do without explicitly telling every gay person they're going to hell. I also hate how Christians automatically get lumped into a category of being homophobic. Because I see a lot of pro-LGBT+ Christians. I've also had some say I'm going to hell for even thinking LGBT+ is okay. They'll answer to God for that anyway because we shouldn't be judging people on that level by Jesus word.

 

[Mind Maverick]

Just wanna say as a Christian:
1. Homosexuality in biblical times was like the word for "tramp" or the s word today moreless. Someone having sex for the sheer sake of having sex.
2. The old testament discussions actually involved Jewish law of...well who you were allowed to bring into your bed when married. bring another dude you defiled the bed. Christians don't follow Jewish law to a T so...?
3. Personally I feel all the verses refer to lust rather than being gay, and I have combatted well enough on my arguments got some very anti-gay marriage people to actually say I had a point, although they were agreeing to disagree.

also I struggle with calling every single Christian who finds gay to be a sin homophobic...I personally feel like these types of believers are using religion as a mask for their bigotry, but at the same time some Christians feel the way they do without explicitly telling every gay person they're going to hell. I also hate how Christians automatically get lumped into a category of being homophobic. Because I see a lot of pro-LGBT+ Christians. I've also had some say I'm going to hell for even thinking LGBT+ is okay. They'll answer to God for that anyway because we shouldn't be judging people on that level by Jesus word.

I was also a Christian for several years, and different people have different interpretations (because honestly, the Bible is in many ways very vague and unclear, not in the sense that I don't understand it, but rather, that there are multiple possible interpretations for the same things and there is often no clarification for those things elsewhere in the Bible either). It is my own understanding based on what I personally have read and gathered myself that the Bible explicitly was against homosexuality in the sense of it being same-sex pairings. There are even stories in the Old Testament in which they talked about women being with women which led to him becoming wrathful and punishing them. That is actually one of the clearer things in the Bible in my opinion. Also, you kind of contradicted yourself in points 1 and 2 because on one hand, you said it was only talking about fornication, then on the other hand, you stated that if a man brought another man into his bed it was defiling the bed. The New Testament didn't change much at all in this area, either, as I see it. While there were indeed then things about the OT that no longer needed to be followed, Jesus also explicitly stated in it "think not that I have come to abolish the law. I have not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it." What this means is that there are certain things a Christian is supposed to follow and it isn't supposed to just be "everyone can do whatever they want now coz Jesus died for everyone's sins, and now you can do whatever you want since no one is perfect anyway, which means you don't even really have to try." The New Testament never actually implied this teaching was true at all, nor did it state that homosexuality became acceptable.

As for point 3...if you use the Strong's Exhaustive Concordance you will find that the translation is very clearly referring to homosexuality, but I don't really care what you believe and am not trying to change your views...you live the life you want to, you're your own person, and quite frankly...I don't believe in any of this shit anymore anyway, so it'd be stupid to try to convince you. I'm just saying that I've done my own very thorough research and developed my own understandings and interpretations based on that. Others might have claimed you had a point, but that doesn't make it more credible to anyone unless they're sheeple, which I am not. This isn't me being rude, it's just simply that I know what I've read and researched and that is not my own understanding of things. I'm not always right about everything, but I still trust my own mind.

I'm not certain that this part was directed toward me rather than the OP/thread in general, but if it was...I never said that every single Christian who believes homosexuality is a sin is homophobic and I wouldn't agree with that either. It would actually be weird if I did because back when I was a Christian I believed it was a sin but I wasn't homophobic and didn't condemn others for it (and I have been in relationships with women before, so it wouldn't even make any logical sense for me to). I was also never masking any kind of bigotry, but rather, I believed "this is what God said, thus it is his rule not mine, it isn't up to me and personally, if it was, I'd allow it because I don't actually see anything wrong with it, but it isn't my choice, it's God's." I also struggled with my own attractions toward other women when I was a Christian since I had my own bisexuality to try to suppress. I wasn't masking bigotry, I just believed that we all had to conform to rules that weren't our own because we were not the ones in charge. I didn't understand why it was considered a sin, nor did I lack empathy for those who would need to forsake homosexuality to conform; I just knew I believed that the Bible considered it to be a sin and there was nothing I could do about it. My Christian experience was not one of intolerance from me, but rather, an experience of the bondage that I felt Christianity was. I shared the same struggles as they did, I was on the same level as anyone else.

 

[Hypatia]

Perhaps a better response is to remain scientifically neutral on a subject? What I mean by that is isn't a big former barrier to gays not being viewed on the same "ontological level", meaning in this context, deserving of some level of respect and acceptance from society due to the fact that that their practice cannot evolutionarily conform to reproductive demands something to be questioned now? Is the basis of reproduction a legit measure of goodness according to Genesis?

One can argue that homosexuality can be heteronormative because these couples can adopt children, for example. Playing the devil's advocate although children put up for adoption can be considered the progeny of the religiously inept from a biblical or religious standpoint.