Why is Islam, Christianity etc homophobic?

[tempter]

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.

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.

God is considered a male figure. Most places only allow men to be priests (though like everything else, Christianity is evolving and the "rules" are changing in many places based on socity and its influence). The bible says wives have to submit to their husbands, men shouldn't lay with men. Etc.
That's a very typical "pro-male is the head" type of relationship.
Monks and nuns CAN reproduce, but aren't suppose to. That's entirely different than "can't naturally" reproduce. The bible says to go out and get married. TRCC is against birth control. Etc. All anti-birth control; pro-breed like rabbits.
Besides, the bible says "multiply" in regards to the population. Thinking this isn't an attempt to "breed into religion" is ignorant IMO.

 

[fallingblood]

God is considered a male figure. Most places only allow men to be priests (though like everything else, Christianity is evolving and the "rules" are changing in many places based on socity and its influence). The bible says wives have to submit to their husbands, men shouldn't lay with men. Etc.
That's a very typical "pro-male is the head" type of relationship.
Monks and nuns CAN reproduce, but aren't suppose to. That's entirely different than "can't naturally" reproduce. The bible says to go out and get married. TRCC is against birth control. Etc. All anti-birth control; pro-breed like rabbits.
Besides, the bible says "multiply" in regards to the population. Thinking this isn't an attempt to "breed into religion" is ignorant IMO.

God is often considered neutral when it comes to gender. Yes, some consider God a male figure, and that may be somewhat dominant, but many also consider God to be female, or without sex.

As for most places only allowing men to be priests, that women are usually very free to be pastors, ministers, church leaders, etc. Yes, the Catholic Church doesn't allow female priests, but from the beginning, there have been women leader in the church.

And the Bible may say the women should submit to men, but it also states that men should honor women, and that women can in fact take lead and be leaders. There is a contradiction about this subject in the Bible.

So it really isn't pro-male. Especially not in our current culture. There are some throw backs, but there has always been a strong female presence.

As for the Bible saying go out and get married. Not really, it says be fruitful and multiply. Paul also states that one should abstain from sex, and that we should, if possible refrain from being married. So another contradiction. Not to mention, we still, even in the OT, see respected and important individuals remaining celibate for religious or other reasons. So the message is not as clear as you try to paint it.

For the TRCC forbidding birth control, big deal. Most Catholics still use birth controls, and the majority of other denominations have no problem with it. Not to mention that the TRCC also advocates celibacy for priests, nuns, monks, the single, etc. If they really wanted to just breed into the religion, they wouldn't advocate celibacy and abstinence.


Finally, the statement to go out and multiply really was one of a historical context. Like I said, later we see Paul stating that one shouldn't marry, and shouldn't have sex, if at all possible. So he clearly isn't saying that people should multiply. The whole go out and multiply was in order to build a nation (not necessarily to breed into a religion).

Most Christians don't take that to be applied to them anyway. That is why few actually have a problem with birth control.

What one needs to remember is that the Bible is not a cut and dry source. Sure, you can find ideas that support what you're saying, but then you have to ignore everything to the contrary. And that is either ignorance (meaning you simply don't know), or dishonest.

 

[sojourner]

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.

So, let me get this straight: you think that, by advocating for homosexuality, all human beings might become homosexual and cause the extinction of humanity?

Has it ever occurred to you that sexual preference is part of natural selection, and God is unconcerned with ratios and orientations?

 

[Skwim]

is arachnaphobia an intollerance of spiders?

Trouble is, you insist on taking the word literally. Your choice of course, but a rather foolish one. Think "blackmail" is black colored letters one gets from the post office? Think a "kangaroo court" is populated by kangaroos? Think "spendthrift" is an oxymoron? Think a "handicap" is a piece of apparel worn on the head of race horses?
The truth about any word we use is that its meaning derives through usage. Common usage dictates what a word's meaning is, or at least one of its recognized meanings is, even if it directly contradicts its construction or original meaning.

 

[adam9]

both the quran and the bible teach that one of the severest punishments handed out to any one group of people was the people of the Prophet Lot(peace be upon him)His people were practicing homosexual acts though they were strictly forbidden from it. You can give your own desire driven interpertations of the Bible or QurAn but these texts have been interperted many times by those better in religous knowledge and more firmly rooted. Last thing to the poster of this question, is it not obvious why homosexuality is forbbiden.Religously from a theist point of view God almighty created males and females and from an athiest or scientific point of view which is an survival point of view it also is of no benifit to man kind. Thanks for listening

 

[Ashir]

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.

I think you only looked at the 'best answer' voted and not the rest because I saw more than 10 and the other links contributed to make more. 100 was a purposeful exaggeration.

 

[Shermana]

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.

Why should a word be defined a way that doesn't match its grammatical roots? Especially if the word is a recent invention? Why not call it "Homopathy" instead? To be Phobic is to be afraid of something. Who is "we"? Thus, those who are naturally grossed out and base their revulsion on their natural "ick" factor which repels them would be the true "Homophobes" in this literal sense. Why should we be forced to accept a definition of a recently coined term according to how some have chosen to use it as opposed to what it means directly? Why can't we make a new word? If "homophobes" started using a new word, does that mean the general definition must conform to such usage? If the word isn't being used according to what it actually means, could that imply there's a (gasp) agenda in how this word is used and applied? As in to broadbrush anyone who has even the slightest negative opinion of the idea rather than the natural revulsion? If anything, you're basically saying the term is nothing but slang if its meaning has nothing to do with its actual etymological composition and we have to take the "street value definition". So essentially the term is just meaningless (meaningful to those who choose to join in on the "Street value" usage) slang with an agenda tacked on.

What term should the common, natural "ick" factor be called?

Think "blackmail" is black colored letters one gets from the post office?

I suggest you find another example, if you can:

blackmail (n.) 1550s, from black + M.E. male "rent, tribute," from O.E. mal "lawsuit, terms, bargaining, agreement," from O.N. mal "speech, agreement;" related to O.E. mæðel "meeting, council," mæl "speech," Goth. maþl "meeting place," from P.Gmc. *mathla-, from PIE *mod- "to meet, assemble" (see meet (v.)). From the practice of freebooting clan chieftains who ran protection rackets against Scottish farmers. Black from the evil of the practice. Expanded c.1826 to any type of extortion money. Cf. silver mail "rent paid in money" (1590s).

"Black" as a term for considered-bad things is well established in the language. (Black rumor, black market, Blacklist) Blackmail is a derivation of Blackmal. Terrible example to use "Blackmail" as evidence against literal definitions, it's very literal, just a bit spelled differently since the 1550s.

Think a "kangaroo court" is populated by kangaroos?

Even this example doesn't work. Such courts were called "Kangaroo" because of the staggered process of Justice, "by leaps" as Wikipedia says. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kangaroo_court

In this sense, the use of a term to describe a characteristic is associated, it has nothing to do with compeltely changing the context of the Etymology to begin with to change the word "phobia" into something other than fear.

Try an example that actually has a common suffix where the suffix doesn't mean what it usually means.

 

[fallingblood]

I think you only looked at the 'best answer' voted and not the rest because I saw more than 10 and the other links contributed to make more. 100 was a purposeful exaggeration.

I looked at all of the answers, and the fact is, most of the information was just repeating itself. People listed the same verses over and over again, so I didn't think it was necessary to go over something I already did. As for following random links to other places, why should I have to? I addressed the links you provided, and the verses that were provided in those links. You haven't shown a single verse that I skipped, or ignored. You haven't provided anything accept evidence that you either are lying or never read the links you provided in the first place.

The fact that you are not able to actually defend your position speaks volumes, and the fact that you continue to make silly comments, without addressing the actual material shows that you are intellectually dishonest. As far as I'm concerned, you know you have no case, and that is why you have resorted to childish antics. And it is now clear that there is no use in continuing with you.

 

[fallingblood]

both the quran and the bible teach that one of the severest punishments handed out to any one group of people was the people of the Prophet Lot(peace be upon him)His people were practicing homosexual acts though they were strictly forbidden from it. You can give your own desire driven interpertations of the Bible or QurAn but these texts have been interperted many times by those better in religous knowledge and more firmly rooted. Last thing to the poster of this question, is it not obvious why homosexuality is forbbiden.Religously from a theist point of view God almighty created males and females and from an athiest or scientific point of view which is an survival point of view it also is of no benifit to man kind. Thanks for listening

The Bible does not state that the people of Sodom were practicing homosexual acts. In fact, it states quite different. I will just copy and paste what I have already said.

Here is what the Bible states: 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.

There is not a suggestion of homosexuality here. The real sin was quite different.

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.


The majority view among OT scholars is that the sin was inhospitality. Those are the people in the know, and we have evidence that this is basically the way the story has been interpreted since early Biblical times. Sure, there have been fringe positions, such as it deals with homosexuality, but that simply is reading what one wants to into the story, while ignoring the story itself. That is not interpretation, that is making things up.

As for God making male and female; God also make gays and lesbians. So your argument fails. Because if what God makes is what is right, homosexuality (something God created) should be no problem. As for it having no benefit, that simply is false. Gays and lesbians can and do procreate. They do raise productive members of society. They do become doctors, and lawyers, and entertainers, and teachers, etc. They donate blood that saves lives. They help take care of their families. If that is no benefit, then humans in general are no benefit. Not to mention, God also creates people who are sterile, who can not, whatsoever, have kids. Your argument simply fails.

 

[fallingblood]

Why should a word be defined a way that doesn't match its grammatical roots? Especially if the word is a recent invention? Why not call it "Homopathy" instead? To be Phobic is to be afraid of something. Who is "we"? Thus, those who are naturally grossed out and base their revulsion on their natural "ick" factor which repels them would be the true "Homophobes" in this literal sense. Why should we be forced to accept a definition of a recently coined term according to how some have chosen to use it as opposed to what it means directly? Why can't we make a new word? If "homophobes" started using a new word, does that mean the general definition must conform to such usage? If the word isn't being used according to what it actually means, could that imply there's a (gasp) agenda in how this word is used and applied? As in to broadbrush anyone who has even the slightest negative opinion of the idea rather than the natural revulsion? If anything, you're basically saying the term is nothing but slang if its meaning has nothing to do with its actual etymological composition and we have to take the "street value definition". So essentially the term is just meaningless (meaningful to those who choose to join in on the "Street value" usage) slang with an agenda tacked on.

Homosexual is also a recently coined term, yet that generally is accepted, even though it isn't true to it's roots. So why the complaint here?

Not all words are true to their roots. Studying Greek, I have seen this a lot. Definitions change, meanings change, that is simply how language works.

I don't see why it is a problem that homophobic has a standard definition, that is accepted by nearly all, and isn't true to it's roots. When someone says homophobic, people generally understand what it means. The fact it, most people don't know Greek and Latin in order to actually deduce the meaning from that. Plus, even your definition of "homophobes" isn't correct anyway, as it would literally come out to being afraid of the same.

 

[Shermana]

Homosexual is also a recently coined term, yet that generally is accepted, even though it isn't true to it's roots. So why the complaint here?

Because the term isn't being used to slander and smear people at this point when its used in the "professional world" Those terms may be used with disgust by those find the concepts disgusting, but those terms are not being used to smear and characterize anyone who has a dissenting opinion against the Liberal Humanistic perspective in this regard of which there's plenty of people who don't agree with its usage. Any time the word "Homophobic" is used, it usually is to deride the person's opinions and beliefs altogether. It is funny that they adopted two words to identify themselves with that were nonetheless totally pejoratives, can't they find something more original?

I don't see why it is a problem that homophobic has a standard definition, that is accepted by nearly all,

I would say the definition is only accepted by "nearly all" who agree with the use of the term to deride their thought-opponents. Essentially the word is designed as a catch all attack vehicle. There's a difference between "accepting" the definition and "agreeing with". I accepted the definition of ridiculous slang terms all through school, does that mean I agreed with their definition?

When someone says homophobic, people generally understand what it means.

Because they have been overwhelmed by a particular segment of the media's usage of the term to the point that they know what they're trying to say, whether they agree with the definition or not. Somewhat similarly, I know what people mean when they say slang terms, that doesn't mean I agree with the slang definition. Essentially it's just Liberal media slang that they are demanding to become an affixed definition apart from its actual definition. Do you think most Conversatives agree with the definition? Or will you admit that it's most likely mainly a term that Liberals agree with the definition thereof, and Conservatives merely understand what they are trying to say.

 

[Shermana]

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.

Ahem....Why did they refuse the virgin daughters...

y. 50 They were haughty and did detestable things before me.

The concept of "Did detestable things" is most likely a hint of some kind of debauchery that was particularly "detestable" before God. It could be hinting at other taboos like incest but it's
most likely referring to the act of lusting after the Male Angels which the readers would be quick to identify the story with.

 

[tempter]

God is often considered neutral when it comes to gender. Yes, some consider God a male figure, and that may be somewhat dominant, but many also consider God to be female, or without sex.

As for most places only allowing men to be priests, that women are usually very free to be pastors, ministers, church leaders, etc. Yes, the Catholic Church doesn't allow female priests, but from the beginning, there have been women leader in the church.

And the Bible may say the women should submit to men, but it also states that men should honor women, and that women can in fact take lead and be leaders. There is a contradiction about this subject in the Bible.

So it really isn't pro-male. Especially not in our current culture. There are some throw backs, but there has always been a strong female presence.

As for the Bible saying go out and get married. Not really, it says be fruitful and multiply. Paul also states that one should abstain from sex, and that we should, if possible refrain from being married. So another contradiction. Not to mention, we still, even in the OT, see respected and important individuals remaining celibate for religious or other reasons. So the message is not as clear as you try to paint it.

For the TRCC forbidding birth control, big deal. Most Catholics still use birth controls, and the majority of other denominations have no problem with it. Not to mention that the TRCC also advocates celibacy for priests, nuns, monks, the single, etc. If they really wanted to just breed into the religion, they wouldn't advocate celibacy and abstinence.


Finally, the statement to go out and multiply really was one of a historical context. Like I said, later we see Paul stating that one shouldn't marry, and shouldn't have sex, if at all possible. So he clearly isn't saying that people should multiply. The whole go out and multiply was in order to build a nation (not necessarily to breed into a religion).

Most Christians don't take that to be applied to them anyway. That is why few actually have a problem with birth control.

What one needs to remember is that the Bible is not a cut and dry source. Sure, you can find ideas that support what you're saying, but then you have to ignore everything to the contrary. And that is either ignorance (meaning you simply don't know), or dishonest.

So basically: "Yeah, but....":ignore:
All the more reason to ignore such a religion: people can make it mean anything they want when it fits their fancy. That's the genius part of Christianity. The rest.....not so much.

 

[fallingblood]

So basically: "Yeah, but....":ignore:
All the more reason to ignore such a religion: people can make it mean anything they want when it fits their fancy. That's the genius part of Christianity. The rest.....not so much.

Actually it was a rebuttal of your view, which simply is not accurate. Now, if all you can come back with is a childish retort, that's fine. But that doesn't make what I said any less valid.

 

[fallingblood]

Because the term isn't being used to slander and smear people at this point when its used in the "professional world" Those terms may be used with disgust by those find the concepts disgusting, but those terms are not being used to smear and characterize anyone who has a dissenting opinion against the Liberal Humanistic perspective in this regard of which there's plenty of people who don't agree with its usage. Any time the word "Homophobic" is used, it usually is to deride the person's opinions and beliefs altogether. It is funny that they adopted two words to identify themselves with that were nonetheless totally pejoratives, can't they find something more original?

Actually, the term homosexual isn't accepted in many GLBT communities as it is a term filled with hate, and is used to smear various individuals. Maybe when it is used in the "professional world" it is different, but the same is true for the term homophobia. Just because a term can be used to smear people, doesn't mean we shouldn't use it. I mean, Christian can be a label used to slander people as well. Doesn't mean we should just give up the label and start inventing new words that no one is aware of.

The term racist, or bigot is often used in the same fashion of homophobe, but they are still correct terms that get the point across.

Just as a side note though, xenophobe is another term that is widely accepted, yet doesn't use its roots correctly. Xeno meaning stranger, and phobia means fear of. Yet, we once again see the actual meaning being someone who has an extreme aversion to.

I would say the definition is only accepted by "nearly all" who agree with the use of the term to deride their thought-opponents. Essentially the word is designed as a catch all attack vehicle. There's a difference between "accepting" the definition and "agreeing with". I accepted the definition of ridiculous slang terms all through school, does that mean I agreed with their definition?

Sure, some people use it as a catch all. But that doesn't mean we should throw it out. Religious is used as a catch all, but it still gets the basic point across.

Because they have been overwhelmed by a particular segment of the media's usage of the term to the point that they know what they're trying to say, whether they agree with the definition or not. Somewhat similarly, I know what people mean when they say slang terms, that doesn't mean I agree with the slang definition. Essentially it's just Liberal media slang that they are demanding to become an affixed definition apart from its actual definition. Do you think most Conversatives agree with the definition? Or will you admit that it's most likely mainly a term that Liberals agree with the definition thereof, and Conservatives merely understand what they are trying to say.

If one understands what is being communicated through various words, they are serving their purpose. Really, it doesn't matter if one agrees with the definition, as long as they understand the definition. That is the purpose of communication after all.

Ahem....Why did they refuse the virgin daughters...

Because the daughters weren't strangers. To assume all the men of the town are gay simply is illogical.

More so, the problem wasn't with Lot, or Lot's family. The problem was with the strangers. And raping them (which is not what homosexuality is) was a way of subjugating those individuals. To see this as homosexuality simply is ridiculous, and completely ignores the fact that straight men do in fact rape other men for various reasons.

The concept of "Did detestable things" is most likely a hint of some kind of debauchery that was particularly "detestable" before God. It could be hinting at other taboos like incest but it's
most likely referring to the act of lusting after the Male Angels which the readers would be quick to identify the story with.

How do you come up with that? There is no mention of lust. There is mention of rape. Rape is not about lust. It is about subjugating others. You see homosexuality here because you want to.

 

[Shermana]

Because the daughters weren't strangers. To assume all the men of the town are gay simply is illogical.

It's illogical to think that they simply all just had a Stranger fetish. It's perfectly reasonable to conclude that they refused the Virgin Daughters because their preference was for the males. Preference for males over females =....? So basically, you're trying to say that your "Stranger Fetish" argument is more logical? Apparently all that time the Virgin daughters never aroused them enough to pound on Lot's door and demand them to be handed over?

Rape is not about lust.

Do I have permission to make a thread about this? You're probably the only person I've met to say such a thing. No matter how you define it, "Power" or "Domination" or whatever, it boils down to the "Conquest mentality" of Physical passion.

You see homosexuality here because you want to.

I would bet many dollars to donuts that the context of "Detestable things" when it was written to the intended audience was about the specific nature of their rapaciousness, and that back then there was no question that it was in fact referring to what we may call "homosexuality" today whether it was rape or not. There's a reason all the men in the village were wanting to be with Male Angels. Did they all just get bi-curious and all become rapacious? They outright refused the Virgin daughters for all that time until then. So you're just trying to see Stranger Fetishism. The King James version was calling "Male Cult Prostitutes" "Sodomites" Centuries before anyone today. 1 Kings 15:12. http://bible.cc/1_kings/15-12.htm

Another thing to keep in mind is that the town was already targeted for destruction, this is only one example of what was going on, and if the Virgin daughters were intact by the time the town's iniquity was ripe for destruction, what does that tell you? Is it logical to conclude that the text only implies they were rapacious if they had already committed abominations enough to be destroyed.

And for Xenophobia, I believe the word "Xenos" inarguably means foreigner from another state and culture. In the ascribed logic above, you are accusing the Sodomites of having Xenofetishism. Well there's a reason why the word "Sodomy" has been applied to consenting adults for quite a few centuries, so I'm obviously not the only person whose interpreted it that way.

The term racist, or bigot is often used in the same fashion of homophobe, but they are still correct terms that get the point across.

It's notable too that many racists and bigots are the ones who accuse others of being racists and bigots. It appears to "get the point across" as a person wants to define the point.

 

[crocusj]

I still dont agree with homosexuality

What does this even mean?

 

[Skwim]

Actually, the term homosexual isn't accepted in many GLBT communities as it is a term filled with hate,

Really, not being a homosexual but one who knows a fair number of them, none have ever expressed such notion. Got any evidence?

 

[fallingblood]

Really, not being a homosexual but one who knows a fair number of them, none have ever expressed such notion. Got any evidence?

I have to say that I wasn't aware of this until I started volunteering and later joined the board at a GLBTQ community center. The members there brought it to my attention.

Here is an article on the subject though http://http://news.change.org/stories/is-homosexual-a-four-letter-word

 

[idav]

Title

Cause Mohamed and Paul were homophobic.