What inspired homophobia?

[Vishvavajra]

Might I bet that they are almost all evangelical Christians?

That's a safe bet. Almost all, with maybe a few Catholics and Muslims thrown in for seasoning. But the Evangelicals sure do seem to spend a lot of time thinking about the gays.

 

[ShivaFan]

They are Everywhere.
You are everywhere.

When the Brown Shirts marched the streets of Munich under the tutelage of Scarface...
You were there.

At the 1968 Republican Convention in Miami Beach, Florida, when Nelson Rockefeller got off that bus...
You shock his hand.

When Jesus looked at 12 Disciples...
Two looked back.

Napolean wore a grand hat.
You made and gave him that hat.

When the Jews walked out of that concentration camp skinny and on death's edge...
You were one of them.
And Kilroy who handed you a canteen of water was, too.

You rode with Joan of Arc.
And the Black Prince of Wales.
Your helmet shone in the sun.
Another lay crushed on the battlefield in Peloponnesia.

You rioted on Fire Island.

You helped create the atomic bomb.

You fell in love. You killed. You kissed the Pope. You made millions. You danced.

You were a naked sadhu in the Himalayas.

You were a Christian minister.

You were a disciple of Lavey.

You saved a kitten.

You are the Family.

And the fact of the matter, is.
We couldn't be without you.
Don't worry. You always will be. We all get the brusher. The whoopie cusion. Or even burned at the stake.

Sometime.

You are not alone.

Elvis likes you.

...................
............................
...................................



You ... inspire us.

 

[Servant_of_the_One1]

Allah/God condemned and forbade homosexuality. And logic says natural love is between man and woman. It is love that leads to good path and to reproduction.

 

[Bunyip]

Allah/God condemned and forbade homosexuality. And logic says natural love is between man and woman. It is love that leads to good path and to reproduction.

Well no, logic says that something natural across the animal kingdom is natural to us as well.

 

[Riverwolf]

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...

Fair point. I admit to have minimal knowledge of ancient Mediterranean culture, except that it was severely misogynistic in many places.

 

[Riverwolf]

And logic says natural love is between man and woman.

No it doesn't. Logic says natural love is between whoever loves each other naturally. Reproduction is secondary.

Or are birth control and celibacy immoral, as well?

 

[amorphous_constellation]

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?

Well, it must have something to do with the culture(s) it is or was demonized(american way of spelling demonised) in. It must have been something that was well ingrained in there, specifically it is part of the greater western culture to inquire into the privacy of the individual, and who knows how long it was like that. Ever notice how many people put up fences and post no trespassing signs, well that's because our culture is on some level a nosy culture which if not exactly in want of your property, is in want of scrutinizing your life if they can. As well in our culture, you might take it for granted, is the application of the word 'normal' and want for something broadly normal as defined by the greater mass of western people. These people don't want to include in 'normal' what they don't consider normal, and the word thus becomes a tyrannical word in that sense. In fact, there are probably more synonyms and aphorisms for the word 'normal' in our language than a great number of other words, which goes a great ways in proving the point. The broadly even-keel typical and normal people are looking to impose 'definition' upon society, 'sanitizing' it in their perception, with an 'order' common to traditional western civil society. See what I mean.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

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

rats, you took the words out of my mouth, literally

 

[psychoslice]

rats, you took the words out of my mouth, literally

Me sorry lol, most fear anything they don't understand, even racism stems from fear, hate groups and some religions, is a safe house for many of these fearful people.

 

[Vishvavajra]

Well no, logic says that something natural across the animal kingdom is natural to us as well.

That's the problem with the "natural law" approach: if it really is a law of nature, then that's how it will be in any case, and there's no need to enforce it. If it's not always the way it is, then it's not actually a law of nature, is it? "Natural law" always boils down to people taking one view of things that they prefer, for whatever reason, and making a kind of appeal to authority for their view, based on the claim that it's the mandate of "nature."

Me, I think "natural law" is always a smokescreen for divine command theory. At least, that's always what it's been in my experience.

And yes, the fact is that homosexuality exists naturally in much of the animal kingdom, including in some of our closest genetic relatives. If one must believe in a creator god, then one must either concede that the creator must like homosexuality, or else he must have made a lot of mistakes along the way. Or one could just concede that the taboo was created by humans for very human reasons and then put into the mouths of gods in order to give it authority, as they have done so many times before, with so many terrible things.

 

[JosephThomas]

Anecdote explains the answer:

A would be/[thinking about it] Rapist a Murder and Pedophile are at the gay pride parade.
Are they positively or negatively effected by what is going on around them?


The homosexuals are criminally insane for advocating anal and orals ex to children in public as well as disturbing the peace of retirees. Ruining healthy enjoyable ****s, by inserting sexual connotations. Advocating anal and oral sex to disrespectful men in school or workplaces, as well as criminals, perverts, rapists and all int he mean while,
Aiding the perspectives of the politically corrupt by being pro for sexual perversions and atheistic perspectives.


*Trick question.
They are positively motivated to go forward with their criminal actions,
and negatively impacted morally.

Check.
I am not afraid of homos. I Can see the scientifically negative effects of their being on society. Disrespectful people are reinforced in their behavior through homosexual activities existing around them.

Atheism is used to forwards corrupt political agendas.

 

[LuisDantas]

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?

My best guess so far is that many cultures hold a lot of expectations towards people regarding their plans to marry and beget offspring. For much of our history it was just kind of assumed that people would do so in order to be socially accepted and fulfill certain social roles, their actual vocations be darned.

The generation preceding this one often seems to me to literally have no idea how they would be supposed to deal with homosexuality without attempting to repress it.

Come to think of it, the advance of the LGBT rights acceptance may have benefitted strongly from the advance of unleashed individualism in the last 20 years or so. We used to be afraid of a lot more things back in the day.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

Your argument isn't about homosexuality specifically; it's about not having kids... and in many of the cultures you describe, plenty of groups didn't have kids but were considered acceptable or held in esteem (e.g. celibate clergy & religious orders, eunuchs).

 

[Shad]

That's the problem with the "natural law" approach: if it really is a law of nature, then that's how it will be in any case, and there's no need to enforce it. If it's not always the way it is, then it's not actually a law of nature, is it? "Natural law" always boils down to people taking one view of things that they prefer, for whatever reason, and making a kind of appeal to authority for their view, based on the claim that it's the mandate of "nature."

Me, I think "natural law" is always a smokescreen for divine command theory. At least, that's always what it's been in my experience.

And yes, the fact is that homosexuality exists naturally in much of the animal kingdom, including in some of our closest genetic relatives. If one must believe in a creator god, then one must either concede that the creator must like homosexuality, or else he must have made a lot of mistakes along the way. Or one could just concede that the taboo was created by humans for very human reasons and then put into the mouths of gods in order to give it authority, as they have done so many times before, with so many terrible things.

Natural Law is descriptive. DCT is prescriptive. Many take the word law out of the context in which it is used and reduce it to the definition they understand. People babble this mistake to others which do not understand context either. They then parrot this mistake and so on.

 

[LuisDantas]

Natural Law is descriptive. DCT is prescriptive. Many take the word law out of the context in which it is used and reduce it to the definition they understand. People babble this mistake to others which do not understand context either. They then parrot this mistake and so on.

May you elaborate?

 

[Vishvavajra]

Natural Law is descriptive. DCT is prescriptive. Many take the word law out of the context in which it is used and reduce it to the definition they understand. People babble this mistake to others which do not understand context either. They then parrot this mistake and so on.

I agree that natural law is supposed to be descriptive. The problem is that human bias creeps in immediately, and it ends up looking like something that is largely indistinguishable from DCT except in its ostensible methodology. For an allegedly descriptive method, there's a great deal of question-begging and a priori assumptions influencing the outcomes. Typically what happens is that the ostensibly neutral observers of nature end up finding that their own traditional cultural values and/or the commandments of their gods are in fact laws of nature. It's basically a pseudo-scientific theory of morality that puts out all kinds of junk because there's no actual scientific rigor and people see whatever they want to see.

And that's not even getting into the is/ought problem.

 

[Shad]

May you elaborate?

Nature law is a descriptive account of mechanics we see in nature. A prescriptive law is like the justice system, laws that are made one should not violate or face punishment. DCT is prescriptive as it contains commands from a Ggod or religion text speaking for a god.

 

[Shad]

I agree that natural law is supposed to be descriptive. The problem is that human bias creeps in immediately, and it ends up looking like something that is largely indistinguishable from DCT except in its ostensible methodology. For an allegedly descriptive method, there's a great deal of question-begging and a priori assumptions influencing the outcomes. Typically what happens is that the ostensibly neutral observers of nature end up finding that their own traditional cultural values and/or the commandments of their gods are in fact laws of nature. It's basically a pseudo-scientific theory of morality that puts out all kinds of junk because there's no actual scientific rigor and people see whatever they want to see.

And that's not even getting into the is/ought problem.

A lot of science relies on prior discoveries and work on said discoveries. It does cause issues if the prior idea is false, flawed or presented incorrectly. Yes a lot of values are shared but it is hardly unique to any single religion nor culture.

 

[Vishvavajra]

A lot of science relies on prior discoveries and work on said discoveries. It does cause issues if the prior idea is false, flawed or presented incorrectly. Yes a lot of values are shared but it is hardly unique to any single religion nor culture.

Sure, but natural law moral theory isn't a science. It's a pseudoscience. The key difference is that science is a particular methodology that allows for a certain degree of objectivity and error correction. Natural law is more like literary criticism.

 

[JosephThomas]

It is scientific to determine all the issues Homosexual brings to the table. It is very scientific.