Originally posted by FeceMan
Is it, now?Spoiler:
No, it's not.
To which one could reply - yes it is.
Really the way these arguments usually end, or maybe should end is - maybe. Since there seems to be a valid reason behind such a theory, and nothing really against it. Thus in the interests of the small chance it is what it says, and not a collective work of narrative fiction, one can say maybe.
I tend to go with the collective work of narrative fiction, because the reasoning behind it is stronger, but the agnostic in me says keep and open mind and thus I do.
Homophobia of today is part of our social structure, which unfortumately we built.
I'm not sure how exactly that went against what I was saying. But any understanding of social evolution must require a rather connected approach. People of many religions love claiming how their religion is the origin of morals and social standards and the rest - and they can't have it both ways, claim the good for themselves and the bad for everyone else.
Religion, primarily in western societies, has contributed a great deal to the current social structure. It is residual effects derived from Christianity, Islam and even some eastern faiths. Is it alone? Of course not, philosophy, science and the rest are all up there, but one can not rule out the religious contribution. It is telling the prior to Islamic and Christian faiths gaining considerable power homosexuality was far more, intellectually at least, accepted, Religion contributed, but was not the sole source of some of the modern homophobia.
Many other who do not have a religion - the classic argument is not really''its a sin'' but more 'it's an illness'' or ''these people will ruin our society'' and aaall other stupid baseless arguments.
I don't believe I ever said homophobia was the province of only religion. In fact I believe I said the opposite. But a question -
Do you deny that many of the mainstream Christian and Islamic sects/denominations operate from a fundamental anti-homosexual stance?
And by mainstream I mean the ones that can claim statistically, not the St Petersburg's Gay Christian union.
The point I was getting at is there are of course people who will always be homophobic, but plenty of them find justification for their views in mainstream religions. Which is unfortunate, even more so when those religions are able to influence large groups of people into homophobic stances - by telling their followers gay people are wrong and need to be saved from themselves, and society saved from them.
Second, here is something interesting - there is nowhere in the Bible, or the Qur'an that the word ''homosexuality'' is used. Fact.
Even the Torah, from which the stoning of homosexuals was copied from, did not contain word ''homosexual'', soanything that happened from then on was a DIRECT influence of society.
Because homosexual is a denotative word relating primarily to the question of sexual orientation, not so much the spiritual pervasion it is seen to be. I can give similar examples with suicide and how it came to be viewed as a sin less due to religious text but rather extrapolation of early religious teachers and their personal views on the subject. It seems to be being implied that past society had a predisposition towards homosexual bias and religion assimilated that bias, not the other way round, which perhaps has merit, however study of such things is just as easy to take as early religious leaders taking acts they view as religiously and socially unsound and developing a religious mythos surrounding them, and how they must be avoided. Because once again it is the two way street. Religion influence society just as much as society influenced religion.
But two question - is modern religious anti-homosexual bias justified or excusable because:
a - their are homophobes outside the Church/etc?
b - the origins of this may have been in part to early social biases against homosexuality?
And - Are certain modern religions points of origin for many peoples current homophobia or anti-homosexual bias? That is if one goes around asking those who dislike homosexuality why, will many claim "because God says it is a sin, by priest/Imam told me so."?
''God said homosexuals are an abomination'' is actually just a stupid argument used by already homophobic people to uphold their belief, because there is no such word a mention in any of the Books.
Correct, it is based upon interpretation. Which is why it is unfortunate religious leaders have let it grow, or even advocated it to the point it has become the major sticking point it is today. And clearly all these religious chappies who have spent their lives studying their religion felt they were justified in promoting it. Which is a problem for any religion.
If you have no religion, you will still have homophobia. As big as it is today. Homophobia is a built in system into our social structure.
Perhaps, but that in no way rebuts the fact (yes, I say fact) that many mainstream religions have an ingrained anti-homosexual aspect which contributes enormously to social bias. Society is a liquid, evolving beast. Laws, religion, philosophy, all play a part. It is impossible to strip society down to the skeleton to find origins for such things, because the origins come from a multitude of areas - including religion.
Imagine a wealthy couple, non religious, lots of money and all the best education. Their son tells them he is gay, do you think they will be all accepting?
Unlikely. It is not about how they feel about homosexuals, but more what will everyone else say.
Ah, but that is a rather large generalisation. Some will be against it, but some wont be. The question is - in terms of social groups - which group will have the highest probability of ant-homosexual bias? Rich people? Actors? Bakers? Poor people? Hard-line religious people? Liberal religious people? Republicans? Communists? The illiterate? Men? Women? Collage educated? High School drop outs?
And so on. Any combination of any number of social/economic/etc groups. And everyone is going to have at least some homophobes, or those who posses a anti-homosexual bias. But are you honestly implying anyone of those groups has the potential to be higher then mainstream Christian/Islamic groups?
So you have your above example, and I know there is a good chance such people, due to their social position in life, will have some problems with images of homosexuals. But is that group going to have a higher statistical percentage of people potentually opposed to homosexual people then say, the following - Two well off Catholics who consider themselves highly religious, pious and true followers of Christ are told by their son one day that he is gay - what is the statistically likely outcome? Do they say they are happy for him and accept his decision, or does the religious fear their son has chosen to send his soul to hell horrify them and inspire them to try and change him or worse?
Because I believe what we have here is you arguing social origins over religious ones. Which is perfectly fair, because society can contribute. But religion contributes to society, especially when it has what is known as influence. And when you have mainstream Christian/Islamic sects that express a powerful anti-homosexual message we have a problem. You will have the homophobes who would hate gays with or without religion, but who find justification in it. And then you will have the people who might not hate homosexuals per say, but will believe their lifestyles are an affront to God and need to be altered.
There are also a lot of groups of gay people which are religious such as -God is Love!
Evangelical Fellowship for Lesbian and Gay Christians
The Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement (LGCM)
GayChristian.net
etc etc etc
There is also an Muslims Gay and Lesbian Movement....etc.
And as you already mentioned, numerous movements within Christian community.
So this idea regarding this thread of ''religion and homosexualty''as being two mutually exclusive things, are just wrong. It is far more complex than that.
And I agree entirely. It is possible to be homosexual and religious. It is possible to be religious and believe being homosexual is perfectly fine, natural and so forth. Yet it is telling that there are people in the mainstream religions who feel their religions attitude towards homosexuality needs to change. This alone seems to indicate that to them change starts at home, and their Church has no justification to express anti-homosexual views, that it is not what Jesus or Muhammad or Moses believed.
I don't think the thread is quite implying they are exclusive, but more the implication religion and homosexuality have a troubled past - due usually to religious opinion. Not that the two are incomparable, but rather that the past, and sometimes current religious atmosphere for certain religions tends to be anti-homosexual.
With any hope those people aiming to change this will be successful. And to reiterate - I don't really disagree with you, I know full well their is homophobia about that is in no way religious. And that their are people, and it is possible, who can be religious and have not the slightest bit of homophobia. And that social considerations can also be a powerful influence. All I am saying is that the spot light can not be taken completly of religions who essentially have in their manifesto the advocancy of anti-homosexualty as something wrong, because religion has a great deal of influence - including on politics - and can have a great deal of effect on society.