Why is Islam, Christianity etc homophobic?

[Falvlun]

homosexuality doesnt produce children. pretty simple really.

Neither do monks and nuns, but last I checked, they were okay by the Christians.

 

[sojourner]

homosexuality doesnt produce children. pretty simple really.

we don't seem to have a problem with lack of population.

 

[Falvlun]

Title

As for the OP, I think it's a general human trait to not like people who are different. That's something we have taken millenia to realize isn't a really good thing to do, and is something we are struggling with to this day.

I think we find a greater likelihood of bigotry in those highly structured, rather literalistic, religions because they are steeped in tradition, are rather authoritarian, and quite resistant to change. Whether the Bible truly supports homophobia is rather a mute point. The point is that the religion's elders supported homophobic interpretations and decided that this was part of God's word. And due to the nature of religion, that is something that is very very hard to change once it has been accepted into the canon.

 

[Ashir]

another good answer. I didn't actually expect a single one apart from 'because it is unnatural and disgusting' which I was waiting to debate.

 

[Skwim]

where does the 'phobia' part come into it?

Its not a 'phobia' ... its a different opinion on what is right and proper. Having a different view does not mean someone has a 'phobia'

Sometimes parsing words only leads to misunderstanding. From an article on homophobia on Wikipedia.

"Homophobia is a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality or people who are identified or perceived as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT)."
​

And from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

ho·mo·pho·bi·a (h

m

-f

b

-

)n.
1. Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men.
2. Behavior based on such a feeling.


​

Capisce'?

 

[javajo]

I think part of it comes from misunderstanding certain passages like in Romans where Paul says some people knew God but turned away and served idols made with hands or false gods or demons and were given over to a reprobate mind so they began to do all manner of wickedness and that some left their natural use and did what was unnatural for them. Some of these did so in acts of worship to their deities as temple prostitutes, but mainly, they left what was natural for them and did what was unnatural. But someone who hits puberty and finds they are attracted to the same sex, for them that IS natural, so it would be wrong to do what is unnatural for them by being with the opposite sex. And they have not been out worshiping demons and stuff, that is just how they are. I have family members who hit puberty and discovered they were gay. This is not what Paul was talking about. Also, out of fear, people have stayed 'in the closet' for centuries, so just like with slavery, civil rights, women's rights, etc., it takes time for people to learn and understand. In the USA, everyone is supposed to be granted life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness with equality for all. So, there you go. Bad thing is, bullying and hate will always be around and there are some who will not try to understand. Jesus said love one another as I have loved you and don't judge. Stick with that is what I believe.

 

[Ashir]

That's how the Bible and the Qu'ran sorts of contradicts itself... for example in the Qu'ran it says to treat Jews like brothers and then says to attack them unless they convert.

 

[s2a]

another good answer. I didn't actually expect a single one apart from 'because it is unnatural and disgusting' which I was waiting to debate.

As I noted earlier within this thread...fear, ignorance, bigotry, and biased/prejudiced feelings/acts are not the lone nor exclusive domains of religions alone...

...animus and hatred towards any group outside or different from one's own is only taught and learned, and is not "natural" even in our darkest "human nature".

It's probably not a large leap to say that from the dawn of humanity itself, homosexuality is a minority part of our shared humanity as a species, and any minority will always suffer the inequities of being "different" from the majority population group as a whole.

Do organized religions exploit and choose to dehumanize those peoples different from the majority, or "mainstream"? Of course they do, as do political parties, hate groups like the KKK, anti-immigrants, isolationists, racists, etc.

But let's remember something very basic about our own humanity.

We are taught to hate. We are taught to fear things we don't understand. We are taught to avoid anything that is not inculcate within our own societal and cultural traditions/ceremonies/observances.

People raised without, and never taught those focused fears and hatreds, almost never adopt them as adults.

Abrahamic religions tend to reinforce the teachings of fear and willful ignorance, sure... but it's not their exclusive burden to bear alone. Most totalitarian regimes practice the same tactics today, primarily to inhibit such tribal/ethnic/cultural/religious conflicts that simmer incessantly amongst those taught to fear or blame others for whatever situation they find themselves within...

 

[Pegg]

Sometimes parsing words only leads to misunderstanding. From an article on homophobia on Wikipedia.

"Homophobia is a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality or people who are identified or perceived as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT)."
​

And from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

ho·mo·pho·bi·a (h

m

-f

b

-

)n.
1. Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men.
2. Behavior based on such a feeling.


​

Capisce'?

colloquialisms can mean anything we want them to mean whether its correct or not.

but its still a meaningless word that only seeks to be insulting for the purpose of retaliation. I still dont agree with homosexuality and im not ashamed to say that.

 

[Pegg]

we don't seem to have a problem with lack of population.

and that is because the majority of mankind are hetrosexual.

If we all became homosexual, we would wipe ourselves out....mass extinction over several decades. Perhaps that might explain why our creator is so against the practice.

 

[Shermana]

Perhaps that might explain why our creator is so against the practice.

I think the "Ick" factor offends even God according to the text, and that's the reason why he said its "Detestable" and an "Abomination". Only things that are considered "Gross" and "disgusting" are labeled as abominations besides idols. Now perhaps what the other side would like to answer is: "Why is there an ick factor". It appears to be very natural for most heteros to have an "ick" reaction, so it obviously can't just be cultural conditioning since it was quite commonly practiced worldwide even when Churches condemned it. Only recently in cultures like China has it become socially taboo and it has nothing to do with the minority Christian religion's demands.

With that, the pre-Christian Roman society didn't exactly condone what we call "homosexuality" entirely, they only condoned the "Butch". The receiver was considered in the lowest of terms, a position only fit for slaves.

Does having an "Ick" reaction and thus a disgust towards the behaviors and desires of those who are of the label count as "Homophobia"? Shouldn't that be what the word actually means instead of attitudes?

PS The Bible only condemns Male-male relations. Augustine as well agreed that Romans 1:26 is not referring to Lesbians. Lesbianism if anything would save womankind from virtually every ail they suffer from if they stayed with other women until they wanted to marry a man.

 

[Ashir]

and that is because the majority of mankind are hetrosexual.

If we all became homosexual, we would wipe ourselves out....mass extinction over several decades. Perhaps that might explain why our creator is so against the practice.

With or without your laws people are on average naturally attracted to members of the opposite sex. I don't even think that taking away religion would have much of an effect on population growth other than it would stop wars allowing the population to grow further.
And what is wrong with us getting wiped out exactly? We are the parasites of the earth. Everywhere would be better off without us, or at least, with a much smaller population of us.

 

[fallingblood]

and that is because the majority of mankind are hetrosexual.

If we all became homosexual, we would wipe ourselves out....mass extinction over several decades. Perhaps that might explain why our creator is so against the practice.

That's a silly way to have a problem with homosexuality though. There is no chance that everyone would become gay or lesbian. Not to mention, individuals who are gay or lesbian can and do procreate.

 

[Skwim]

colloquialisms can mean anything we want them to mean whether its correct or not.

I suggest you look up the word "colloquialism."

but its still a meaningless word that only seeks to be insulting for the purpose of retaliation.

Meaningless? Every dictionary I've looked at has a solid definition that is just like the others. So although you may not like the word, probably because it could be applied to you (see your remark below) that's just too bad. If the shoe fits . . . .



Remark below

I still dont agree with homosexuality and im not ashamed to say that.

 

[fallingblood]

also @fallingblood those links provided even hundreds of verses, when you explain them all then I'll accept that the Bible does not have homophobic passages. Simultaneously the question still goes for the Muslims too.

Either you are straight out lying, or you didn't even look at those links. Because they don't even come close to providing a hundred verses. The first link provided just 10 (if we assume all of those have to do with homosexuality) from the Bible, and 2 from the Quran.

The second link provided 5 from the Quran (which repeated the 2 from the first link) and 6 from the Bible, with 4 of them repeated. That hardly equals hundreds of verses. So we have about 17 total. I will deal with the Biblical passages, as those are the ones I know. I won't deal with the passages from the Quran, simply because that is not my area of study. I'm also splitting this into OT and NT.

Old Testament Passages:

Leviticus 18:22-30
22 You are not to sleep with a man as with a woman; (A) it is detestable. (B)

Really, we only have one verse here, even though they listed a lot more, but they were dealing with other subjects. Verse 22 only deals with male anal intercourse. When we look at the Bible, the only time we see such an act is with rape. That is not homosexuality. Considering that not all gay or lesbian individuals engage in such an act, and at the same time, many non-gay individuals do engage in this act, we can not see it as homosexuality. Because it just isn't.

Ezekiel 16:49-50 (New International Version)
49 " 'Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. 50 They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.

Nothing about homosexuality. It rests on the assumption that the sin of Sodom was homosexuality. Yet, if you read this verse, it actually says nothing about that, but that the sin was quite different. They were jerks.

Judges 19:22-25 (New International Version)
22 While they were enjoying themselves, some of the wicked men of the city surrounded the house. Pounding on the door, they shouted to the old man who owned the house, "Bring out the man who came to your house so we can have sex with him."
23 The owner of the house went outside and said to them, "No, my friends, don't be so vile. Since this man is my guest, don't do this disgraceful thing. 24 Look, here is my virgin daughter, and his concubine. I will bring them out to you now, and you can use them and do to them whatever you wish. But to this man, don't do such a disgraceful thing."
25 But the men would not listen to him. So the man took his concubine and sent her outside to them, and they raped her and abused her throughout the night, and at dawn they let her go.

To assume this has anything to do with homosexuality is more than ridiculous. First, we see these men having sex with a woman. That should be the first clue. Second, this verse has to do with rape. That is not what homosexuality is.

God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground. (Genesis 1:28)

Again, no mention of homosexuality. And seeing that gays and lesbians do procreate, this passage shouldn't be a problem.

Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them." .... They kept bringing pressure on Lot and moved forward to break down the door. But the men inside reached out and pulled Lot back into the house and shut the door. ...(Genesis 19)

I cut this one down just for space, as most of the passage had nothing to do with the topic. As we saw with the Ezekiel passage, the sin of Sodom was not homosexuality, but inhospitality. They simply were jerks. Second, this story is very similar to the one in Judges, which deals with rape, and not homosexuality (rape is not homosexuality). Third, it states all of the men from the city were in on this. It is ridiculous to assume every man in the city was homosexual, because then your city dies. Fourth, there is no mention of homosexuality. There is only mention of some horrible people who want to rape others. Not to mention Lot obviously didn't think these individuals were gay men, as he offered his daughters to them instead.

New Testament Passages:

Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders. (1 Corinthians 6:9)

First, this is a bad translation. There is no Greek word for homosexual. So this translation simply isn't correct. Exactly what arsenkoites translates to (what this translation is portraying as homosexual) is not fully known. It could be the active person in male anal intercourse. But here again, we would only have an act, not a sexual orientation, which is condemned.

The biggest thing though, is that right after these verses, says those people can be saved, can be washed and justified. It is hardly condemning homosexuality.

1 Timothy 1:9-11 (New King James Version)
9 knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10 for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine, 11 according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God which was committed to my trust.

Here again, we don't exactly know what arsenkoites means. This translation puts it as sodomite. That isn't homosexuality though. Sodomy has been defined as everything that is not male female reproductive sex. That includes using birth control, masturbation, touching erogenous zones, etc. Sodomy really is a word that basically is useless, as it is so vague it could mean nearly anything, and has. It does not equal homosexuality though.

Romans 1:25-27 (English Standard Version)
25because they exchanged the truth about God for(A) a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator,(B) who is blessed forever! Amen.
26For this reason(C) God gave them up to(D) dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another,(E) men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

This is the closest thing to discussing homosexuality as it gets in the Bible. However, we aren't talking about homosexuality. We are talking about non-gay individuals making a conscious decision to participate in "homosexual acts." More so, right after this passage, the whole argument flips around, and those who had been judging such people are told that they are also guilty, and that they shouldn't judge anyone.

So it has nothing to do with homosexuality, and in fact, tells people not to judge others.

That is everything that they listed under the Bible. That is hardly hundreds of verses, and none of them actually talk about homosexuality. In fact, a couple of them even state (if the context is read) that one shouldn't judge others, and that regardless of who we are, we can be justified and washed clean.

Like I said before, I'm not going to discuss the Quran verses simply because that is not my field of study. However, as I have shown here, the Bible is not "homophobic" and does not degrade the GLBTQ community.

 

[YmirGF]

give me a word which describes an intollerance of gays and I will be happy to use it instead.

Islam

 

[fallingblood]

homophobia is a word with no meaning. A fear of gays? give me a word which describes an intollerance of gays and I will be happy to use it instead.

However, intollerance of anything without justification is wrong...

Homophobia (even though stupidly construed, as in it takes a Latin word and combines it with a Greek word, and really comes out to a fear of the same), it still has a meaning. This meaning is given to it by people. When someone uses the term homophobia, the definition is quite clear. It is a dislike or extreme diversion to homosexuality.

Homophobia does describe intolerance of "gays."

 

[tempter]

Title

A couple reasons IMO:
1 - the whole religion is based on the the typical male/female relationship where the male is dominant. Same sex relations negate this typical relationship. And neither know what to do when things don't follow the plan each religion is based on
2 - same sex relationships can't naturally create children. It's easier to convert when one breeds into the religion. So non-procreating pairings are useless to each religion and thus, considered "bad/evil/sin"

 

[fallingblood]

is arachnaphobia an intollerance of spiders?

Completely different. Arachnaphobia actually follows the roots of the words, and the definition fits that. But then again, we still defined the word.

Homophobia has been defined a different way; however, it still has a standard definition that should be understood by the user and hearer of the word.

 

[fallingblood]

A couple reasons IMO:
1 - the whole religion is based on the the typical male/female relationship where the male is dominant. Same sex relations negate this typical relationship. And neither know what to do when things don't follow the plan each religion is based on

The religion is not based on that though. In fact, the leaders of Christianity did not have that typical male/female relationship. In fact, looking especially at Paul, we see him praising women (some of which are single), for leading the cause. More so, in our current time, such a relationship has greatly dissolved, and women can and do have the dominance in many churches and groups. And they work out just perfectly.

2 - same sex relationships can't naturally create children. It's easier to convert when one breeds into the religion. So non-procreating pairings are useless to each religion and thus, considered "bad/evil/sin"

Nuns and Monks also don't procreate. So they don't breed into the religion. Neither do priests (or at least for the most part). Neither do those who use birth control, eunuchs (which are praised in the Bible), or the single. So that really doesn't fly.