Religious Attitudes To Homosexuality

[paigetheoracle]

Recently in the UK three men were found guilty of inciting hatred, by handing out leaflets, claiming Islam would kill homosexuals because they are sinners in the eyes of God.

 

Logic should dictate that The Supreme Being brought these people into existence, through expression of his wishes to create life - any life. Therefore to attack them is to assume God did not know what he was doing. It also assumes that the people 'acting on his behalf' want to protect him from their existence as did Hitler and that implies God is weak (wrong) and needs protecting from himself. To suppress any life by killing it, also goes against God's wishes as he created homosexuality or how else can he be the creator of everything in existence as The Koran and Bible imply or is their God purely local? (Biblical scholars against homosexuality, please note this too). Alan Turing, a scientific genius was hounded to death by such an attitude, which made the world poorer and more backward because of this act. Does God want more stupid people in the world or more intelligent ones, even if they are flawed? True, homosexuals can't have children. When looked at through the lens of venereal disease, they are also the biggest sufferers of this kind of illness, when compared to heterosexuals but lesbians can't get or pass on any such maladies, so are obviously the most superior group of the three, from this point of view.

 

I personally feel this has nothing to do with God but is more psychological, with people using righteousness as a cover for their own fears about this form of sexual orientation. Intolerance shows fear - tolerance, courage - which of these is nearer to God do you think, logically?

[pamela]

Recently in the UK three men were found guilty of inciting hatred, by handing out leaflets, claiming Islam would kill homosexuals because they are sinners in the eyes of God.

UK ROCKS!!!!

 

Logic should dictate that The Supreme Being brought these people into existence, through expression of his wishes to create life - any life. Therefore to attack them is to assume God did not know what he was doing. It also assumes that the people 'acting on his behalf' want to protect him from their existence as did Hitler and that implies God is weak (wrong) and needs protecting from himself. To suppress any life by killing it, also goes against God's wishes as he created homosexuality or how else can he be the creator of everything in existence as The Koran and Bible imply or is their God purely local? (Biblical scholars against homosexuality, please note this too). Alan Turing, a scientific genius was hounded to death by such an attitude, which made the world poorer and more backward because of this act. Does God want more stupid people in the world or more intelligent ones, even if they are flawed? True, homosexuals can't have children. When looked at through the lens of venereal disease, they are also the biggest sufferers of this kind of illness, when compared to heterosexuals but lesbians can't get or pass on any such maladies, so are obviously the most superior group of the three, from this point of view.

Logic would dictate this as implausible.

I personally feel this has nothing to do with God but is more psychological, with people using righteousness as a cover for their own fears about this form of sexual orientation. Intolerance shows fear - tolerance, courage - which of these is nearer to God do you think, logically?

amen and preach it brother :P

[Moontanman]

Recently in the UK three men were found guilty of inciting hatred, by handing out leaflets, claiming Islam would kill homosexuals because they are sinners in the eyes of God.

 

Logic should dictate that The Supreme Being brought these people into existence, through expression of his wishes to create life - any life. Therefore to attack them is to assume God did not know what he was doing. It also assumes that the people 'acting on his behalf' want to protect him from their existence as did Hitler and that implies God is weak (wrong) and needs protecting from himself. To suppress any life by killing it, also goes against God's wishes as he created homosexuality or how else can he be the creator of everything in existence as The Koran and Bible imply or is their God purely local? (Biblical scholars against homosexuality, please note this too). Alan Turing, a scientific genius was hounded to death by such an attitude, which made the world poorer and more backward because of this act. Does God want more stupid people in the world or more intelligent ones, even if they are flawed? True, homosexuals can't have children. When looked at through the lens of venereal disease, they are also the biggest sufferers of this kind of illness, when compared to heterosexuals but lesbians can't get or pass on any such maladies, so are obviously the most superior group of the three, from this point of view.

 

I personally feel this has nothing to do with God but is more psychological, with people using righteousness as a cover for their own fears about this form of sexual orientation. Intolerance shows fear - tolerance, courage - which of these is nearer to God do you think, logically?

 

 

While i am an atheist and do not believe in the existence of god you have hit the nail on the head in your last paragraph for sure. A great many people... hell most people have sexual feelings they are not comfortable with, they are taught from childhood these urges are evil. i am honestly not sure why sex is particularly evil, the religious can do almost anything they want to a child, physical and mental abuse is rampant in many religious persuasions. Even what we would call Ephebophilia is not just tolerated but actively promoted as right in some Christian cults and some Muslim sects as well, in some I have seen it asserted that even pre-pubescent girls are fair game but I really don't think that is very likely to be true or at least as wide spread as some would have us believe. But homosexuality is still punishable by death in some countries and this is based in religious doctrine.

 

Religion makes very little sense and the closer you look the less sense it seems to make. but as you have pointed out homosexual behavior is especially hated, for what reason I honestly don't know. It's quite easy to find a theist who thinks homosexuals are evil and can cite the verses in the bible that supports their point, they often loudly proclaim it's an abomination, but when confronted by passages in that same chapter that require unruly children to be killed they start back peddling. Just wearing clothing that is made of more than one kind of thread is an abomination but only homosexuals seem to be deserving of that term in our modern lives, i have never had a theist give me a reason why homosexuality is so special...

[maddog]

Recently in the UK three men were found guilty of inciting hatred, by handing out leaflets, claiming Islam would kill homosexuals because they are sinners in the eyes of God.

I am curious these three men were found guilty... It is true that "free speech" is not defended in GB like it is the US. Not that I

agree in any way with these three men.

 

Logic should dictate that The Supreme Being ...

Logic can only meet a paradox with a nonsense answer. God in all its forms is paradoxical in nature and thus merit not considering

logic. As this website likes to divide this question into two groups - I would be considered in the theist group and not an atheist.

I have respect for those who are atheist in their beliefs and do not attempt to foist my beliefs over theirs. Also I find it odd really

as being a Gnostic, it was our group that was persecuted by all the other "theists" during the early Christian era. So I do find

more affinity with atheistic concepts than Fire and Brimstone "bible thumping" christian practitioner who gets (starts?)

ridiculous arguments on subjects they know very little of the actual subject.

 

Paige why your argument fails is because something called "free will" -- [Christian] "God let's those people chose as they

wish". If you are an atheist, you likely think there is none {Free Will}. For you the universe is preordained (I am not sure by

who) to happen as it will. People have no choice.

 

I find this flies in the face (badly) against QM. One can not predict what will happen to the cat before hand until the waveform

collapses. Alive or dead it eventually will be. Not known beforehand.

 

maddog

[bravox]

I personally feel this has nothing to do with God but is more psychological, with people using righteousness as a cover for their own fears about this form of sexual orientation. Intolerance shows fear - tolerance, courage - which of these is nearer to God do you think, logically?

 

I think the answer has more to do with biology than theology. Homossexuality works against survival of our species. Some of it can be tolerated; too much of it can be fatal.

 

Wouldn't it be right to think that, from an evolutionary point of view, homophobia is a desirable trait in a species? It may be cruel but so are most things in the evolutionary process. We certainly don't condemn animals for their pro-survival behaviour. In the absence of absolute morals, why apply different standards to our own species?

 

(just asking, not advocating anything)

[JMJones0424]

Do you have any support for your claims bravox, or are you giving your opinion as if it was an obvious fact? If homosexuality was detrimental from an evolutionary aspect, then why is its occurrence so pervasive across many different species? How is homophobia a heritable trait? You seem to me to be confused about what evolution is.

[bravox]

Do you have any support for your claims bravox, or are you giving your opinion as if it was an obvious fact?

 

I was actually asking questions, not making any claims.

 

If homosexuality was detrimental from an evolutionary aspect, then why is its occurrence so pervasive across many different species?

 

Having sex with one's sibling is definitely detrimental from an evolutionary perspective, yet a lot of people interbreed.

 

Not all traits found across species help survival or reproduction. They don't have to as long as they are restricted to a small portion of the population.

 

How is homophobia a heritable trait?

 

Not homophobia per se. There is (probably) no gene for homophobia anymore than there is a gene for appreciation of wine. It can be all manifestations of a more generic trait. But again, it's all speculation of my part.

 

(it just occurred to me that there must be a gene that makes women attractive to men, and men repulsive to men. If men didn't have an overwhelming preference for having sex with women, we wouldn't be here today. Who says that same gene can't be behind homophobia?)

 

You seem to me to be confused about what evolution is.

 

I'd rather leave that sort of judgement aside. I don't know what you know and you don't know what I know. (how is that for a confusing sentence? ;) )

Edited February 28, 2012 by bravox

[JMJones0424]

OK, let's start over.

 

First you made two claims that need to be supported by evidence:

1) Homossexuality works against survival of our species.

2) Some of it can be tolerated; too much of it can be fatal.

 

Then you asked some questions

1) Wouldn't it be right to think that, from an evolutionary point of view, homophobia is a desirable trait in a species?

One would first need to demonstrate that homophobia is a trait that is heritable. If it is, and that trait confers an increased probability of survival, then the answer would clearly be yes. I dispute your assertion that homophobia is a heritable trait, and I asked for evidence to support your assertion.

2) In the absence of absolute morals, why apply different standards to our own species?

I can think of a number of reasons why groups of humans, in the interest of maintaining a stable society, would wish to place restrictions on our behavior that we would not expect other animals to follow.

 

In your second post you make some more claims:

1)Having sex with one's sibling is definitely detrimental from an evolutionary perspective, yet a lot of people interbreed.

I don't see what this has to do with the topic.

2)Not all traits found across species help survival or reproduction. They don't have to as long as they are restricted to a small portion of the population.

I don't doubt that not all traits are advantageous. My point was that if homosexuality was disadvantageous, as you claimed when you said, "Homossexuality works against survival of our species," then the processes of natural selection would select against homosexuality, and we would expect to not see the prevalence across many species that we do.

3)There is (probably) no gene for homophobia anymore than there is a gene for appreciation of wine. It can be all manifestations of a more generic trait.

If the trait isn't heritable, then we aren't dealing with evolutionary processes.

 

And another question:

(it just occurred to me that there must be a gene that makes women attractive to men, and men repulsive to men. If men didn't have an overwhelming preference for having sex with women, we wouldn't be here today. Who says that same gene can't be behind homophobia?)

I do, or at least I would like to see evidence that it is rather than just accepting your word for it. There is certainly evidence that sexual attraction has genetic components, though I would argue that it is far more than just one gene responsible. How do you go from a genetic component to sexual attraction to a genetic component to homophobia?

 

Finally, in response to your observation that we don't know what each other knows, I agree. This is why I asked if you have evidence to support your assertions or if they were your opinions. I have nothing to go off of except what you write.

[bravox]

First you made two claims that need to be supported by evidence...

I'm sorry if this will seem like a cop out but I'm not really interested in the evolutionary merit of homophobia or homossexuality. Those are questions that cannot be answered in a discussion forum.

 

What I find really interesting is that people tend to resort to evolution to justify moral behaviour, but I have never seen the same thing done to explain immoral behaviour. In my mind, if evolution can explain brotherly love, compassion, personal sacrifice, then maybe it could also explain hatred, prejudice, homophobia...

 

Thanks for your replies but I'm afraid we're getting out of topic.

 

More on topic...

 

I am honestly not sure why sex is particularly evil, the religious can do almost anything they want to a child, physical and mental abuse is rampant in many religious persuasions.

But notice how even the secular society is just as intolerant of sexual behaviour beyond what is considered acceptable. I laugh everytime I see a female teacher arrested for having sex with a male pupil. Boy, how I wish I had been a "victim" of sexual abuse by my female teachers!

 

(I couldn't find an emoticon for "tongue in cheek")

Edited February 29, 2012 by bravox

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

Recently in the UK three men were found guilty of inciting hatred, by handing out leaflets, claiming Islam would kill homosexuals because they are sinners in the eyes of God.

 

Logic should dictate that The Supreme Being brought these people into existence, through expression of his wishes to create life - any life. Therefore to attack them is to assume God did not know what he was doing. It also assumes that the people 'acting on his behalf' want to protect him from their existence as did Hitler and that implies God is weak (wrong) and needs protecting from himself. To suppress any life by killing it, also goes against God's wishes as he created homosexuality or how else can he be the creator of everything in existence as The Koran and Bible imply or is their God purely local? (Biblical scholars against homosexuality, please note this too). Alan Turing, a scientific genius was hounded to death by such an attitude, which made the world poorer and more backward because of this act. Does God want more stupid people in the world or more intelligent ones, even if they are flawed? True, homosexuals can't have children. When looked at through the lens of venereal disease, they are also the biggest sufferers of this kind of illness, when compared to heterosexuals but lesbians can't get or pass on any such maladies, so are obviously the most superior group of the three, from this point of view.

 

I personally feel this has nothing to do with God but is more psychological, with people using righteousness as a cover for their own fears about this form of sexual orientation. Intolerance shows fear - tolerance, courage - which of these is nearer to God do you think, logically?

A logical discussion involving beliefs/religion?!?!!? Impossible! At least beyond "this is what they supposedly believe, according to their religious texts.". For those demanding backup of this claim feel free to look at every single attempt at such a thing on this site!:blink:

 

As for the bible thumpers I'd be willing to bet most haven't noticed that a great many modern printings of the "King James" are lacking a good deal of the passages on the subject...brought to my attention recently was a documentary on biblical disasters namely Sodom and Gamorah for which they claimed the bible made no explanation of why "God" destroyed them...A quick perusal of the good book and holy crap! That the men of Sodom refused women and wanted instead to instead have sex with Lot and the other men in his group is no longer in there! My old bible from 1982 has it but the 1993 edition (same version and printing company mind you) does not have it.

 

So it would appear there are religious folk out there that believe this to be BS or I dunno. Other passages pertaining to men having sex with men are also missing, With the exception of one brief mention in Revelations.

 

I dunno, I left the seminary and stopped attending mass a long time ago...just couldn't see the point. Either God is infallible and the bible is God's word, or God is fallible and didn't keep track of what his prophets were writing down.

 

With nearly every Christian claiming that it is BUT some parts don't apply (how convenient) any more,..or the ever popular "God's word as written by men" neatly implying that God is an incompetent boob that couldn't even get the people he talked to to write things down the way he wanted them written either by choosing people that would, remote control or intimidation I think the bulk can be dismissed as somewhat interesting stories and or downright boring reading.

[CraigD]

I think the answer has more to do with biology than theology. Homossexuality works against survival of our species. Some of it can be tolerated; too much of it can be fatal.

The argument that, biologically, homosexual behavior works against a large animal species’ survival, appears nonfactual to me, because the behavior is common in many of the most successful large animal species, including ours, H.Sapiens.

 

Keep in mind that species success is about populations, not individuals. While the absence of a particular kind of heterosexual behavior in an individual - breeding with a reproductively viable member of the opposite sex - clearly reduces the likelihood of that individual having descendents, this doesn’t necessarily mean that species’ population will decline.

 

In the case of H.Sapiens and many other large animals, there’re many sensible explanations of how homosexuality can be beneficial to the species’ reproduction, most related to the social, rather than the reproductive, functions of sexuality.

 

Wouldn't it be right to think that, from an evolutionary point of view, homophobia is a desirable trait in a species?

In evolutionary biology, it’s wise to be suspicious of concepts like “desirable”. Evolution produces population that have the traits that cause or permit them to survive. It’s also wise to be careful with the use of the term “trait”, which in biology, is usually confined to visible or invisible physical characteristics, not social acquired behaviors or ideas. I know of no evidence suggesting that homophobia has a physical biological basis, and much suggesting it’s a learned behavior and a moral philosophical idea.

 

In summary, there appears to be no strong consequence to our or many other species’ exhibiting either homosexuality-philic or homosexuality-phobic behavior, though we can state with certainty that neither kind of behavior has caused our species to become extinct, and that the underlying physical traits that cause or permit individuals to have these behaviors are present in our species’ population.

[bravox]

The argument that, biologically, homosexual behavior works against a large animal species’ survival, appears nonfactual to me, because the behavior is common in many of the most successful large animal species, including ours, H.Sapiens.

I do not dispute that, but I'm curious about what you said next.

 

In the case of H.Sapiens and many other large animals, there’re many sensible explanations of how homosexuality can be beneficial to the species’ reproduction, most related to the social, rather than the reproductive, functions of sexuality.

I can't make sense of your line of thinking. If homossexuality can be inherited, why can't the same be said for homophobia? If homossexuality can be thought to be beneficial on the simple basis that it exists, why can't the same be said of homophobia?

 

Again, I'm not advocating or justifying homophobia, just asking honest questions.

[Moontanman]

I do not dispute that, but I'm curious about what you said next.

 

 

I can't make sense of your line of thinking. If homossexuality can be inherited, why can't the same be said for homophobia? If homossexuality can be thought to be beneficial on the simple basis that it exists, why can't the same be said of homophobia?

 

Again, I'm not advocating or justifying homophobia, just asking honest questions.

 

 

I will take this, I have a homosexual son, once you get past the phobias our society imposes on us from the outside it's easy to see that homosexuals do not deserve the phobia you feel. Homosexuals are all around us, they have always been a part of society, in fact I think it's wrong to think of sexuality in the manner you suggest. Very few people would know my son is homosexual if he didn't tell them. The idea of homosexuals being effeminate is wrong, only a small percentage of homosexuals are effeminate just like very few lesbians are masculine. There is still some debate over homosexuality being genetic some of it at least has to do with hormonal exposure in the womb.

 

Think about your feelings, if you have a friend who is homosexual and you don't know it and he is a good friend and you have spent lots of good times together and suddenly you find out if he is homosexual does he suddenly become a different person? Or is your phobia really something that has been imposed on you by society? It's a question you need to ask yourself, how are homosexuals a threat to you? I know many homosexuals and I feel no threat from them at all. Unless you desire sexual contact from them the fact they are homosexual is irrelevant.

 

 

Much of homophobia has to do with the fear that we might share those feelings in some degree. Sexuality is not a on off switch, it's more of a rheostat, all of us have feelings of attraction to the same sex. Most of us do not see it as a sexual attraction but if you feel no attraction then why are they a threat? Don't let what others tell you to cloud your mind, homosexual phobia is imposed on you by society it is not a natural reaction.

[pamela]

I do not dispute that, but I'm curious about what you said next.

 

 

I can't make sense of your line of thinking. If homossexuality can be inherited, why can't the same be said for homophobia? If homossexuality can be thought to be beneficial on the simple basis that it exists, why can't the same be said of homophobia?

 

Again, I'm not advocating or justifying homophobia, just asking honest questions.

I think you need to have a clear understanding of what homophobia means. It is an irrational fear. This fear in turn, can demonstrate itself in discrimination,anger and often violence. I think you would need to look at the individuals mental and emotional health for a basis in understanding why the fear is presenting. However, the homophobia itself, should not be considered inherited.

[bravox]

I'm sorry, everyone has misunderstood my point although I'm sure it's been my fault for not making myself clear. I write these posts during breaks at work and don't have much time to elaborate.

 

I think it's wrong to think of sexuality in the manner you suggest.

I haven't suggested anything, and I apologize for the bad writing that may have made you think I did.

 

As far as I'm concerned people are free to do whatever they want with their personal lives, as long as they don't hurt others. That is a clichè but true nonetheless.

 

Or is your phobia really something that has been imposed on you by society?

We can turn that argument on its head and ask if homosexuality may be imposed on some individuals by society. This line of reasoning will take us nowhere worth going.

 

The only thing I'm asking, the only thing I wanted to know, is why people view homosexuality in one way and so-called homophobia in another way. Not that I think they shouldn't, only I see no basis for it other than a feeling of compassion.

 

Notice that I do share this feeling of compassion but I find no basis for it other than in my religious beliefs. When I see people justify homosexuality on a biological/evolutionary basis, I keep thinking "why do they do that, it makes no sense".

 

When I claimed homophobia may have an evolutionary basis I was just playing the same game to see what happened. The result is in the responses above, and I found them to be quite irrational.

 

 

I think you need to have a clear understanding of what homophobia means. It is an irrational fear. This fear in turn, can demonstrate itself in discrimination, anger and often violence. I think you would need to look at the individuals mental and emotional health for a basis in understanding why the fear is presenting. However, the homophobia itself, should not be considered inherited.

Why not? Isn't the fear of being eaten by lions inherited?

 

Again, notice that I'm just playing the devil's advocate here. I'm trying to show that there is no rational basis to argue for one position or another. This can perhaps explain why religious people act the way they do, that they are not being evil, that their problem is not that they are religious but that they are not religious enough.

[JMJones0424]

The only thing I'm asking, the only thing I wanted to know, is why people view homosexuality in one way and so-called homophobia in another way. Not that I think they shouldn't, only I see no basis for it other than a feeling of compassion.

 

Because there is no evidence that homosexuality is a choice, and there is no evidence that homophobia isn't.

 

When I claimed homophobia may have an evolutionary basis I was just playing the same game to see what happened. The result is in the responses above, and I found them to be quite irrational.

Why do you find them irrational? You claim that a behavior, homophobia, is a beneficial adaption, yet you have not provided evidence that the behavior is either hereditary or advantageous.

 

 

Why not? Isn't the fear of being eaten by lions inherited?

I don't know. Do you have any evidence that it is?

 

Again, notice that I'm just playing the devil's advocate here. I'm trying to show that there is no rational basis to argue for one position or another. This can perhaps explain why religious people act the way they do, that they are not being evil, that their problem is not that they are religious but that they are not religious enough.

Play devil's advocate all you like, but at least try to find evidence to support your argument. Otherwise, you're just yanking our chain.

[bravox]

Because there is no evidence that homosexuality is a choice, and there is no evidence that homophobia isn't.

I don't understand your argument. How can you be sure that homosexuality is not a choice? Because animals do it? How can you be sure that animals do it for the same reasons that humans do? Birds sing; do you think Beethoven composed his symphonies to attract members of the opposite sex? (mind you, it didn't work for him :lol: )

 

You are not playing the game by your own rules.

 

try to find evidence to support your argument

My argument is that people are irrational when it comes to this subject. And the evidence is here:

 

In the case of H.Sapiens and many other large animals, there’re many sensible explanations of how homosexuality can be beneficial to the species’ reproduction, most related to the social, rather than the reproductive, functions of sexuality.

I think this is as laughable, and just as unfounded, as the idea that homophobia may be a hereditary trait. How come everyone balks at one (rightfully so) but takes the other at face value? I can only think they do that because one position is "evil" and the other is "good". Nothing to do with rational thought.

Edited February 29, 2012 by bravox