• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Why has religion predominately been against homosexuality?

Who cares why?

They do it, which proves that they are evil. Why they choose to be evil is a lesser concern.

Why someone chooses to be evil (although I dislike the word and such things are rarely as simple as being a matter of 'choice') is *never* a lesser concern if your interest is at all inclined towards discouraging the spread of evil. You must first understand the cause of a problem before you can begin to prevent it from happening again.

The cause of the problem is simple.

Christians choose to be Christian, and Muslims choose to be Muslim. Thus, they choose to be evil on the topic of homosexuality.

History shows that if we point out their evil often enough, they will reform and insist that their religion was always against the persecution of homosexuals, but they will only do this if we point out that their teachings and actions based on those teachings are evil.
 
The cause of the problem is simple.

Christians choose to be Christian, and Muslims choose to be Muslim. Thus, they choose to be evil on the topic of homosexuality.

First, this is black and white thinking of the same sort they engage in. Reality isn't that neat and tidy; and belief is not something one actually has much conscious choice in. Suggesting otherwise makes it seem as if we choose the way we see the universe we live in the same manner one would choose whether to have a vanilla or a chocolate milkshake. We simply don't have that kind of control over how we see the world and those within it. Indeed, if we did, the world wouldn't be as fucked up as it is. You can choose to walk into a church, and that might lead you down a path that eventually has you believe in the christian religion... but one doesn't simply choose to, from one moment to the next, to be christian. Just as one doesn't simply choose to be evil.

Secondly, religion itself obviously isn't the real cause and you're doing both the bigots and their victims a great disservice by using this sort of rhetoric.

"Who cares why the enemy is our enemy? All that matters is that they are the enemy."



History shows that if we point out their evil often enough, they will reform and insist that their religion was always against the persecution of homosexuals, but they will only do this if we point out that their teachings and actions based on those teachings are evil.

You and I must read some very different history books.

Besides, what you're talking about *never* happens as a result of telling people that their teachings and actions are evil. You don't seriously believe that going up to a rapist and telling him "Hey, rape is evil!" is going to make him change his ways, do you? Why would you think that's how it works with religion? No, people don't change their ways by actively going up to to tell them they're evil. That just annoys them and makes them defensive. All you'd accomplish is for them to dig their heels deeper into the sand.

Hatred thrives on conflict; which is what you're giving it. This is why largely ignoring them is the only viable long-term strategy. Modern society didn't get to be as tolerant as it is by constantly moralizing the old-fashioned bigots; it got there by allowing them to gently turn irrelevant. We occasionally mock them, and yes point out that this or that is bad... but pushing it too hard will always backfire.
 
1. Conveniently powerless scapegoat.
2. Part of broader theme of sexual control. The idea is that if you can get your followers to accept the idea that the cult can control your sex lives, there's nothing you can't get them to accept.

This rings true for me.
 
The fact that the bible prohibits any and all sex outside of marriage pretty much destroys any notion that the pleasure aspect of sex is given any serious consideration; it shows that enjoyment is at best, a distant concern; and not something you're supposed to give primary importance to.


I've always found atheists to be so very *polite* and *tolerant* of the opinions of Christians.
You're very much like homosexuals in that respect.

:rolleyes:

So first you complain about people's attitudes by acting like a sarcastic twat...

Who said anything about acting?
 
The fact that the bible prohibits any and all sex outside of marriage pretty much destroys any notion that the pleasure aspect of sex is given any serious consideration; it shows that enjoyment is at best, a distant concern; and not something you're supposed to give primary importance to.

At a time when there was no modern birth control I can see how a ban on sex outside of marriage might be a good idea. Then again, that would make it a good idea to encourage homosexual behavior.
 
Ancient nomadic people with a predisposition for war, leading to high mortality rates then to a need for high reproduction rates.

That makes sense as well. "Be fruitful and multiply." But do we have good data on death rates by war and other factors vs reproduction rates 2K years ago?
 
I think it's about control. If the religion can actually control your behavior in the bedroom, you're truly a puppet. Accepting limitations on one's own sexual behavior demonstrates that one has drunk the kool-aid. Many religions control many aspects of sexuality, not just homosexual behavior.

I think it's also tied in with the concept of the sacred and purity. Some heterosexuals feel repulsed by the idea that two men are sexually intimate (the yuck factor), this can easily be translated into a command not to do so.

And this makes it a 'rule/commandment' that they can easily follow and feel pious about it (if you're not sexually attractive to the same sex, not having sex with them is an easy commandment to obey) compared to their more sexually adventurous and freer pagan neighbors.
 
This rings true for me.

Why is Putin against gays?
It seems that authoritarian regimes always pick some group for the population to demean and detest. Having some group for the population to blame for their problems takes the focus away from their leadership as the cause of their problems. Nazis picked Jews, Mao and Pol Pot picked intellectuals, Iran's leaders pick Israelites, many pick Amerika as the turd in the punch bowl. I think Putin picked gays because they were available and didn't have enough power to effectively fight back.
 
Why do certain Christians in modern Western countries have such a fucking problem with homosexuality? Well back when I was a Christian in my mid teenage years, I believed that everything in the Bible was true. The Bible states homosexuality is wrong, therefore I believed it. Now for those Christians who don't believe Biblical inerrancy and who aren't closeted self-hating homosexuals themselves, I've no idea. I've yet to hear a reasonable basis for discrimination against gay people.
 
Could it have something to do with patriarchal social frameworks? The Abrahamic religions have their bases in fear. Although women don't have as much physical power, are sexual or reproductive power seen as threats?

These religions have always been consistent in the area of sexual repression, but also consistent in placing the burden and punishment of that on women.

Is it possible that the old mother/goddess worship societies had no problem with homosexuality?
 
Back
Top Bottom