What inspired homophobia?

[Bunyip]

Reading many threads on homosexuality, gay marriage, LGBT concerns and so on it dawned on me that I do not know WHY homosexuality has been so demonised. It is a victimless crime if it is a crime at all, and seems to be something that concerns nobody other than the participants - so where does the fear come from? What are we afraid of? Why have so many cultures reacted so strongly against what appears to be perfectly normal behaviour?

 

[Nietzsche]

Reading many threads on homosexuality, gay marriage, LGBT concerns and so on it dawned on me that I do not know WHY homosexuality has been so demonised. It is a victimless crime if it is a crime at all, and seems to be something that concerns nobody other than the participants - so where does the fear come from? What are we afraid of? Why have so many cultures reacted so strongly against what appears to be perfectly normal behaviour?

Monotheism seems to have the biggest problem with it. Cultures before the introduction or forcible conversion to Judaism, Christianity & Islam tended to either not-care entirely about it, or in the case of the culture I'm most familiar with(Germanic & Norse) only cared if you owned property and thus had matters of succession & inheritance to clear up. So it was seen as a duty to have a child(preferably a son but a daughter would do)...and then do what you will. But even that was only from a viewpoint concerned only with ones' responsibilities involving land, wealth & what have you. Fulfill that societal obligation and it no longer mattered beyond petty gossip, something that's going to exist regardless of what you do or who you are.

 

[psychoslice]

One word, fear, people fear that which they don't understand.

 

[Augustus]

Monotheism seems to have the biggest problem with it. Cultures before the introduction or forcible conversion to Judaism, Christianity & Islam tended to either not-care entirely about it, or in the case of the culture I'm most familiar with(Germanic & Norse) only cared if you owned property and thus had matters of succession & inheritance to clear up. So it was seen as a duty to have a child(preferably a son but a daughter would do)...and then do what you will. But even that was only from a viewpoint concerned only with ones' responsibilities involving land, wealth & what have you. Fulfill that societal obligation and it no longer mattered beyond petty gossip, something that's going to exist regardless of what you do or who you are.

Would it be true to say that 'pure' homosexuality would be very rare though, and that any people involved in homosexual behaviour would also be married? Sort of a marriage for kids, homosexuality for fun for those who wished to indulge. Seems to have been the case for Greeks and Romans.

Other reasons for opposition to homosexuality, due to need for labour to work the land and provide the group with physical protection, kids and grandkids to help support the parents when they got old, high infant mortality rates/death rates, etc. you can see why there would be a strong desire to have fecund children as it benefits the family and the tribe/society. It did not benefit anyone to have purely homosexual offspring and if you did it didn't benefit you to tolerate it and accept their lifestyle choices.

When general customs became reified into religious laws, homosexuality became forbidden as people lost many of the 'grey areas'. It does make sense in an ancient context.

 

[Bunyip]

I understand what you are saying, but being gay doesn't mean that you can't have kids. I think the idea of attaching labels that define people as exclusively gay or straight is a very modern misconception.

 

[Slide]

I am easily intimidated by homosexual men because of abuse I suffered as a kid. That having been said, homosexuality was demonized by the Abrahamic religions, and--at least in the United States--it was demonized because of Fundamentalist Christianity born out of Puritan roots. Up until 1976, homosexuality was considered a mental illness in the U.S.A. In the 1980s, gays were demonized as pedophiles because of a controversy surrounding the Boy Scouts of America.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Just want to throw this in here: A History of Homophobia: 1 The Ancient Hebrews

 

[Vishvavajra]

Reading many threads on homosexuality, gay marriage, LGBT concerns and so on it dawned on me that I do not know WHY homosexuality has been so demonised. It is a victimless crime if it is a crime at all, and seems to be something that concerns nobody other than the participants - so where does the fear come from? What are we afraid of? Why have so many cultures reacted so strongly against what appears to be perfectly normal behaviour?

Two reasons.

In the modern day you have a lot of people whose moral systems are very simplistic, based on blind adherence to rules that they believe have been handed down from some authoritative source. They never consider the whys and wherefores, never question the authority of the tradition, never stop to think about the immorality of things like homophobia, given their enormous human cost and all the unconscionable suffering that results.

The other reason, which goes back to the beginning of human history, is that homophobia is intimately tied up in patriarchy and constructions of masculinity, which is where we get firm gender roles for both sexes etc. Homosexuality threatens that rigid view of sex and gender and reminds people that it isn't so cut and dried, which bothers a lot of them on a deep level. Even the ancient Greeks were still homophobic in a lot of ways, believing that for a man to be penetrated by another man would rob him of his masculinity and effectively turn him into a woman (i.e. the inferior sex). Religions like Christianity didn't invent those attitudes; they just unthinkingly perpetuated them and inadvertently lent them religious authority, whereas before they were purely social prejudices.

 

[Tumah]

Just want to throw this in here: A History of Homophobia: 1 The Ancient Hebrews

I read the part about the Hebrews. I'm not sure where the author got the definition of "hideous flesh" for erva, as the closest I could find was "something disgusting to reveal". Not that the organ itself is disgusting, but the revelation of it is. And I would say in general, that this nuance would be a better evaluation of Scriptures. In the vast majority of cases, it is not that the body that is ever described as disgusting, but that revealing the body is. Adam and Eve don't see how disgusting they actually are, but they are embarrassed because their bodies are revealed. Revealing the nakedness of x,y,z is constantly repeated.
And I think that an expression of the difference in these evaluations is that the first commandment of Scriptures to Man is to procreate.

 

[Tumah]

Sorry about the digression above.
What I did mean to add to the topic is:

I do think that Judaism had a hand to play in this. I believe that when Jewish Scriptures were conscripted for use in other religions, the statute was absorbed as well, without the underlying reasoning. This lead to a nebulous fear of such a relationship (when its only the actual action that is prohibited in Jewish Scriptures) and peoples, that was perpetuated through the domination of those other religions throughout the world.

 

[Riverwolf]

While I don't think the proposed reasons are inherently wrong, I do want to put forward another potential explanation that's been bouncing around my head.

I suspect the practice of gender/sex segregation has a lot to do with the fear. One idea behind segregating the biological sexes is that the men (who are, of course #sarcasm, slobbering animals who can't control their sexual urges) won't put the women in danger, and the women (who are, obviously #sarcasm, inherently weak and effeminate and highly emotional) won't take away the mens' manly masculinity. In this model, if any of the men in the mens' club are homosexuals, then they're seen as a danger because of mens' inherent rampant and uncontrollable sexual desires; they'll rape the other men and make them all effeminate in one fell swoop.

With this demonization comes the inherent abuse of bisexual men, who are fed fears of "turning gay" and could become severely depressed and self-loathing as a result. (As a side note, I strongly suspect that the nonsensical idea of "homosexuality as a lifestyle choice/nothing but lust" was started, and largely perpetuated, by people who are self-denying bisexuals, who don't realize that heterosexuals feel no sexual attraction for their same biological sex, and that homosexuals likewise feel none for the other.)

And none of this is even TOUCHING on the strongly related TQ part of the LGBTQ+ movement, which also throws a strong wrench in this whole mess. People who are asexual, demisexual, transgender, intersex, genderfluid, or any other form often get ignored in these discussions, and I suspect this is because the existence of such orientations/gender-identities basically disprove all of the "reasons" for hating, shunning, or fearing homosexuality.

 

[Eliab ben Benjamin]

What inspired homophobia?

Increasing tribal population numbers ...

 

[gsa]

I read a pretty good analysis of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 from an ancient Hebrew professor, Saul Olyan. He believes that the insertive partner was actually the initial target of Leviticus 18:22, and that there is evidence that the redactors added the penalty for the passive partner. This puts them out of alignment with most other forms of homophobia at the time. Assuming that there was something to the Sodom story, I would guess that rape was the initial target and it encompassed consensual relations over time.

There's also some evidence that this was a Persian bias that was adopted/stolen by the Hebrews.

 

[Vishvavajra]

I suspect the practice of gender/sex segregation has a lot to do with the fear. One idea behind segregating the biological sexes is that the men (who are, of course #sarcasm, slobbering animals who can't control their sexual urges) won't put the women in danger, and the women (who are, obviously #sarcasm, inherently weak and effeminate and highly emotional) won't take away the mens' manly masculinity. In this model, if any of the men in the mens' club are homosexuals, then they're seen as a danger because of mens' inherent rampant and uncontrollable sexual desires; they'll rape the other men and make them all effeminate in one fell swoop.

Interesting idea, though it's worth pointing out that in ancient Mediterranean culture at least, it was women who were thought to have voracious sexual appetites, whereas self-control was a masculine trait. In other words, pretty much the opposite of how popular culture views it today. On the other hand, homosexuals were assumed to possess feminine traits, so...

I read a pretty good analysis of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 from an ancient Hebrew professor, Saul Olyan. He believes that the insertive partner was actually the initial target of Leviticus 18:22, and that there is evidence that the redactors added the penalty for the passive partner. This puts them out of alignment with most other forms of homophobia at the time. Assuming that there was something to the Sodom story, I would guess that rape was the initial target and it encompassed consensual relations over time.

That would indeed be very different, as general Mediterranean taboos against homosexuality revolve around the idea that penetration is feminizing, so being the "active" partner was generally considered acceptable, regardless of the sex of the "recipient." (Obviously they saw sex as something that one person does to the other, rather than a mutual thing.) On the other hand, penetrating freeborn boys was a serious crime against their honor and the honor of their families, since it was thought to rob them of their manhood for life, basically. So if the law code is aimed at free Jews and their treatment of other Jews (who aren't going to be their slaves, at least not forever), then it makes sense to forbid that kind of thing generally.

As for the Sodom story, I think it's pretty clear that it's not about sodomy at all. That's an old misreading. It's actually about failure to adhere to rules of hospitality, which ancient people regarded as far more important than any sexual mores. In Greek myth the Flood was set off by a failure of hospitality. But people think it's about buttsex because tradition tells them so, and that tradition seems to come from the assumption that "to know" is meant as a euphemism in the story, as it is in some other places, whereas here it's probably just literal: the mob doesn't like that Lot has strangers in his house and want them to come out so they can interrogate them, which is not how you're supposed to behave. Lot's offering his daughters up is just a way for the mythographer to show how serious he is about the whole thing.

 

[gsa]

That would indeed be very different, as general Mediterranean taboos against homosexuality revolve around the idea that penetration is feminizing, so being the "active" partner was generally considered acceptable, regardless of the sex of the "recipient." (Obviously they saw sex as something that one person does to the other, rather than a mutual thing.) On the other hand, penetrating freeborn boys was a serious crime against their honor and the honor of their families, since it was thought to rob them of their manhood for life, basically. So if the law code is aimed at free Jews and their treatment of other Jews (who aren't going to be their slaves, at least not forever), then it makes sense to forbid that kind of thing generally.

As for the Sodom story, I think it's pretty clear that it's not about sodomy at all. That's an old misreading. It's actually about failure to adhere to rules of hospitality, which ancient people regarded as far more important than any sexual mores. In Greek myth the Flood was set off by a failure of hospitality. But people think it's about buttsex because tradition tells them so, and that tradition seems to come from the assumption that "to know" is meant as a euphemism in the story, as it is in some other places, whereas here it's probably just literal: the mob doesn't like that Lot has strangers in his house and want them to come out so they can interrogate them, which is not how you're supposed to behave. Lot's offering his daughters up is just a way for the mythographer to show how serious he is about the whole thing.

Olyan's argument is pretty persuasive. I think that the full article is available outside of JSTOR if you google it. I do think that the prohibition extended to sojourners, but I am not sure about slaves. And in general I agree on the Sodom story, but it is clear that by the time of Mohammed (and possibly Josephus) there was some kind of anti-gay reading, since the Quran mentions the transgression of preferring men to wives. What that meant to early Muslims who knows, but it was at least related to the act.

 

[Vishvavajra]

Olyan's argument is pretty persuasive. I think that the full article is available outside of JSTOR if you google it. I do think that the prohibition extended to sojourners, but I am not sure about slaves. And in general I agree on the Sodom story, but it is clear that by the time of Mohammed (and possibly Josephus) there was some kind of anti-gay reading, since the Quran mentions the transgression of preferring men to wives. What that meant to early Muslims who knows, but it was at least related to the act.

Thanks for pointing me to the Olyan article (I have access to JSTOR). I suppose you've also seen there's a bit of a rebuttal/reevaluation by Jerome Walsh. I wish I knew Semitic languages well enough to judge their arguments on the linguistic merits, but I'm afraid the Hebrew is a mystery to me.

As for Sodom, I think the shift in interpretation probably happened in the Hellenistic period, when knowledge of Hebrew wasn't so good among most Jews and a lot of folks were relying on the Septuagint as a crib for the Hebrew, or even an outright replacement. The Greek has the verb συγγίνομαι, which could mean simply "to meet with," but it could also have sexual connotations. So of course naturally people look at the Hebrew and the Greek, and the fact that both use words that can be euphemisms for sex, and they conclude that it must obviously be talking about sex. And by the time you get words like "sodomy" in the language (yay, English!) it becomes hard for people not to see it.

 

[gsa]

Thanks for pointing me to the Olyan article (I have access to JSTOR). I suppose you've also seen there's a bit of a rebuttal/reevaluation by Jerome Walsh. I wish I knew Semitic languages well enough to judge their arguments on the linguistic merits, but I'm afraid the Hebrew is a mystery to me.

As for Sodom, I think the shift in interpretation probably happened in the Hellenistic period, when knowledge of Hebrew wasn't so good among most Jews and a lot of folks were relying on the Septuagint as a crib for the Hebrew, or even an outright replacement. The Greek has the verb συγγίνομαι, which could mean simply "to meet with," but it could also have sexual connotations. So of course naturally people look at the Hebrew and the Greek, and the fact that both use words that can be euphemisms for sex, and they conclude that it must obviously be talking about sex. And by the time you get words like "sodomy" in the language (yay, English!) it becomes hard for people not to see it.

I did. But like you, I'm no expert so I just float Olyan as a seemingly reasonable interpretation.
I also agree re: Septuagint. That probably disturbed a number of idiomatic meanings. Certainly "virgin."

 

[Sapiens]

Inspired homophobia ... is that a revealed truth?

 

[Vishvavajra]

Inspired homophobia ... is that a revealed truth?

I've met a whole lot of people who seem to think it is both a revealed truth and a religious duty (and telling them to stop it constitutes religious persecution).

 

[Sapiens]

I've met a whole lot of people who seem to think it is both a revealed truth and a religious duty (and telling them to stop it constitutes religious persecution).

Might I bet that they are almost all evangelical Christians?