Is homophobia linked to religion?

[Greater Pareidolia]

Sigh.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/aug/11/george-soros-the-money-behind-the-transgender-move/

Now, because this forum always needs a disclaimer because people are usually not very smart and/or overly emotional:
I AM NOT AGAINST GAYS OR TRANSGENDERS. I am against them being weaponized by having their ideals taken advantage of. And sadly, that factors in a lot of naiveté.

I firmly believe that whatever Geroge Soros wants is bad for everybody else. LGBT people are just pawns to him. Listen: for him to gain power, he needs more EU.

Part of that is messing with the nuclear family. After all, the less people who give birth, the
better. The goal is after all to supplant locals. As a result, LGBT groups are getting funding to do their passive-aggressive rainbow shtick. It is highly unlikely same-sex relationships will get many children, as it takes a whole lot more effort for them to become parents than same-sex relationships.

So now you have less locals thanks to an already aging population coupled with more people outing themselves as gay because it's more acceptable to be such.

But how does that lead to George Soros benefiting from this?

He needs to tear down national identities. Part of that is unbridled immigration by people who have more children and are not as smart as the locals. All of this under the guise of replenishing the working population, of course. Not only are these immigrants less likely to see what is really going on (Not PC? Screw it. IQs are demonstrably lower in areas where these migrants come from. Facts don't care about your feelings.), but they also have no ties to the new country. Do you really think Murat from Mosul really gives a shit about the Eiffel tower or French sovereignty as much as Pierre from Paris?)

The clincher is that Soros doesn't actually give a shit about LGBT. In fact, the unbridled immigration is most likely going to be disastrous for the LGBT community because since those immigrants adhere to a certain everything-hating "religion", they are going to thank said community for their help (if that) after which they are promptly killed in a barbaric fashion. Which is why the LGBT support for islam mystifies me. It's like a Jew helping Nazis. (Incidentally, George Soros is a Jew who helped Nazis. He said it was the happiest time of his life.)

So... a paranoid, xenophobic rant based on the fact that a prominent liberal rich guy supports the trans rights movement with his own money?

Meh.

No. Not just on that fact. But this is the part that specifically goes to the misguided LGBT people.

[Emperyo]

Homophobia is linked to a nation's very culture and not religion.
Both the Philippines and the Vatican City are predominantly Christian; but homosexuals are open about their gender in the former country whilst in the latter, to be gay is taboo due to the conservative culture in the Vatican City.
Malaysia and, say, Syria, are both Muslim-dominated countries. There's not as much hate for the LGBT community in Malaysia than Syria due to the very difference in culture.

Hence, it is culture that determines the strength of such homophobia. Does the country encourage inclusiveness and tolerance, or is it more "stubborn", seeing laws (especially religious law) in black and white and subsequently indirectly allowing homophobia? To quickly determine this, if progressivist beliefs are on the mainstream in that nation, homophobia is generally weak there.

[Alvecia]

So... a paranoid, xenophobic rant based on the fact that a prominent liberal rich guy supports the trans rights movement with his own money?

Meh.

No. Not just on that fact. But this is the part that specifically goes to the misguided LGBT people.

How are they misguided?
Like, as far as I can tell, he just funds LGBT rights stuff. How are the LGBT community being taken advantage of?

[Liriena]

No. Not just on that fact. But this is the part that specifically goes to the misguided LGBT people.

How are they misguided?
Like, as far as I can tell, he just funds LGBT rights stuff. How are the LGBT community being taken advantage of?

'cause Muslim immigrants.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Please. The Koch Bros are America's equivalent of him. Except that the Koches never actually worked with nazis, as far as I know.

Even the people at /r/the_Donald think your accusation against Soros is a load of bullcrap.

https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/4ad404/george_soros_helping_nazis_was_the_happiest_time/

Because clearly George Soros was a malevolent human being ever since he was born.

I mean, look at him, he's on the fields already planning world domination and ubersmenshen dominion over every living being. That face spells pure evil. EVIL: http://www.nybooks.com/wp-content/uploa ... 062311.jpg

[Quokkastan]

Is George Soros just the right-wing's boogeyman because they desperately need to deflect from the Koch Bros or something?

Please. The Koch Bros are America's equivalent of him. Except that the Koches never actually worked with nazis, as far as I know.

A quick glance at his age reveals he was only 15 when WWII ended.

This reeks of paranoid bullshit.

[Alvecia]

How are they misguided?
Like, as far as I can tell, he just funds LGBT rights stuff. How are the LGBT community being taken advantage of?

'cause Muslim immigrants.

[Greater Pareidolia]

Please. The Koch Bros are America's equivalent of him. Except that the Koches never actually worked with nazis, as far as I know.

Even the people at /r/the_Donald think your accusation against Soros is a load of bullcrap.

https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/4ad404/george_soros_helping_nazis_was_the_happiest_time/

Oh my. So that part isn't true? Why then that must by default call EVERYTHING ELSE about him in question, musn't it?

Dr Cox, your input, please?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPD5q6DC43M

Thank you Dr Cox.

So then the Koches are like Soros. Yay!

I firmly believe that whatever Geroge Soros wants is bad for everybody else.

Jesus, it's like there's no nuance in this.

So you mean to tell me that if George Soros wanted America to be more powerful than before that'd be bad just because it is George Soros and you'd be working to tear down America to the ground? Really?

Is this really the hill you want to die on, Pareidolia?

Are you threatening me over this?

[Imperializt Russia]

Please. The Koch Bros are America's equivalent of him. Except that the Koches never actually worked with nazis, as far as I know.

A quick glance at his age reveals he was only 15 when WWII ended.

This reeks of paranoid bullshit.

Pareidolia did link me to an article proclaiming the EU to be a Nazi institution, so I imagine that's his line here.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Are you threatening me over this?

No, when I ask you "is this the hill you want to die on", I am actually asking you if you are really going to stick to that argument to its logical conclusion.

Because I don't believe you're being serious, and if you are, boy, do you need to chill out with the conspiracy theory websites.

[Bogdanov Vishniac]

Base disgust at the act is also a common reason. Let's just say that from the perspective of the average heterosexual man, there is something fundamentally wrong with a guy making advances on another guy, so it's little wonder that one may find such behaviour unnatural and repulsive.

It's interesting that you're appealing to the 'fundamental' here. Are you sure it's actually something innate, or are you just finding a universalizing justification for your own personal feelings? 'Cause I've met plenty of straight dudes, and the vast vast majority of them have no problem with homosexual behaviour amongst males.

[Greater Pareidolia]

A quick glance at his age reveals he was only 15 when WWII ended.

This reeks of paranoid bullshit.

Pareidolia did link me to an article proclaiming the EU to be a Nazi institution, so I imagine that's his line here.

Oh, so his age precluded him from working with nazis?

For fuck's sake, Imp. You should know that people can be terrible at all ages.
Or have you forgotten James Bulger?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_James_Bulger

Here, to make it easy for you lazy ones:

James Patrick Bulger (16 March 1990[1] – 12 February 1993) was a boy from Kirkby, Merseyside, England, who was murdered on 12 February 1993, at the age of two. He was abducted, tortured and murdered by two ten-year-old boys, Robert Thompson (born 23 August 1982) and Jon Venables (born 13 August 1982)

Or what to think about the children of ISIS or HAMAS being trained to kill kufars/Jews at an early age? Or is that paranoid bullshit too?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/isis-children-extremist-propaganda-mosul-offensive-latest-a7402986.html

http://heavy.com/news/2016/08/new-isis-islamic-state-amaq-news-pictures-videos-kurdish-ypg-peshmerga-execution-beheading-by-boy-child-foreign-soldiers-raqqa-syria-telegram-full-uncensored-youtube-mp4-download/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_suicide_bombers_in_the_Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict

At best, you're horribly naive. At worst, moderator action ensues against me.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Base disgust at the act is also a common reason. Let's just say that from the perspective of the average heterosexual man, there is something fundamentally wrong with a guy making advances on another guy, so it's little wonder that one may find such behaviour unnatural and repulsive.

It's interesting that you're appealing to the 'fundamental' here. Are you sure it's actually something innate, or are you just finding a universalizing justification for your own personal feelings? 'Cause I've met plenty of straight dudes, and the vast vast majority of them have no problem with homosexual behaviour amongst males.

I'm a straight guy, and I don't think there is anything "fundamentally wrong" in liking guys.

Now, I think I'd be bothered if my gay friends made a pass on me, and I'd decline politely, and if they keep harassing me I might tell them to fuck off, but I don't feel that hitting on another guy is inherently wrong.

[Migdal Bavel]

Base disgust at the act is also a common reason. Let's just say that from the perspective of the average heterosexual man, there is something fundamentally wrong with a guy making advances on another guy, so it's little wonder that one may find such behaviour unnatural and repulsive.

It's interesting that you're appealing to the 'fundamental' here. Are you sure it's actually something innate, or are you just finding a universalizing justification for your own personal feelings? 'Cause I've met plenty of straight dudes, and the vast vast majority of them have no problem with homosexual behaviour amongst males.

You're very lucky, then. Because 'straight dudes having a problem with homosexual behiaviour amongst males' is not rare.
(And I'm not straight, btw)

[Quokkastan]

It's not impossible to be homophobic without religion. It is very nearly impossible to defend homophobia without falling back to religion.

Arguments against homophobia not based in religion tend to get thrashed, but because the main principal of religion is "I believe x because I believe x" it's more resistant to criticism.

[Alvecia]

Pareidolia did link me to an article proclaiming the EU to be a Nazi institution, so I imagine that's his line here.

Oh, so his age precluded him from working with nazis?

For fuck's sake, Imp. You should know that people can be terrible at all ages.

You're making it sound like he went out and volunteered when by all accounts it sounds like he was accompanying a father figure

[Imperializt Russia]

Pareidolia did link me to an article proclaiming the EU to be a Nazi institution, so I imagine that's his line here.

Oh, so his age precluded him from working with nazis?

For fuck's sake, Imp. You should know that people can be terrible at all ages.

My statement actually backed up your point, since it conceded the possibility that an adult Soros could have realistically worked with ex-Nazi businessmen in the 1950s and 1960s.

Not sure why you're talking about child killers who you would do well to note, aren't businessmen.

[Bogdanov Vishniac]

I'm a straight guy, and I don't think there is anything "fundamentally wrong" in liking guys.

Now, I think I'd be bothered if my gay friends made a pass on me, and I'd decline politely, and if they keep harassing me I might tell them to fuck off, but I don't feel that hitting on another guy is inherently wrong.

I would imagine that your irritation would probably be more of a function of the fact that your friends know that you're straight and hit on you anyway rather than their sexuality itself, no?

It's interesting that you're appealing to the 'fundamental' here. Are you sure it's actually something innate, or are you just finding a universalizing justification for your own personal feelings? 'Cause I've met plenty of straight dudes, and the vast vast majority of them have no problem with homosexual behaviour amongst males.

You're very lucky, then. Because 'straight dudes havin a problem with homosexual behiaviour amongst males is not rare.
(And I'm not straight, btw)

Probably varies a lot depending on area, social group etc. But that's my point right there - it varies. IS is whitewashing his own opinions by trying to extend them to the broadest possible audience as an appeal to the majority.

[Dagnia]

Religion in general, no. Particular religions, yes and no. As much as the religious people like to think their holy books were given to them by their deity, the books and the religion itself, are reflections of the society that believes in them. In biblical Israel, when your tribes are being constantly run over by Egyptians, Babylonians and Hittites in addition to all the plagues, infant mortality and other things threatening your people's survival, you need everyone contributing to creating more children. Since they draw on Judaism, Christianity and Islam simply retained these attitudes, even though they are not a tribal religion of the Hebrew people.

Part of the reason the eastern religions tend to have little or nothing to say on the subject is the Chinese, Indians and Japanese do not have the same risk as the biblical Jews of being wiped off the earth if their birth rates slip a little. It may also account for the more tolerant attitudes in Greece and Rome.

[Gages Icelandic Army]

Saying religion creates homophobia is basically saying we evolved like this
Monkey without self awareness->Monkey with self awareness-> Monkey begins to contemplate death-> Monkey begins to fear it-> Monkey starts to believe we don't die because there's an after life (religion- basically a way to cope with death but there's other theories where religion came from as well)-> Homophobia... for some reason.

Religion isn't homophobic by its nature. Its beginnings were probably much more simple. The evolution of religion probably went...
Monkey begins to contemplate death-> Monkey begins to fear it-> Monkey starts to believe we don't die because there's an after life (probably to cope with death) ->religion starts-> Starts to be used to explain what monkeys don't know (the beginning, origins, science, etc) -> Starts to be used to justify common sense morals (adultery, murder, etc) -> used to justify more baseless morals (anti gay, Sabbath, no ham, etc)
I believe homophobia was innate to humans BEFORE religion.

But that's kind of speculation as to EXACTLY how that turned out. It is easy to assume the following though
Monkey without self awareness->Monkey with self awareness-> Monkey notices there's a minority in the tribe (be it skin color, sexual orientation, demeanor, Majority monkeys begin to treat these minority Monkeys horribly (because ganging up on a minority helps to prevent possible persecution against you+it develops unity among the majority which always helps growth), Monkey begins to contemplate death-> Monkey begins to fear it-> Monkey starts to believes we don't die because there's an after life (religion)-> Religion becomes a part of monkey culture+ Homophobia was already a part of monkey culture= religion and homophobia collided.
If you believe in evolution, than you have to believe that religion simply isn't homophobic by nature, but rather its authors,that is us, were already homophobic and therefore inscribed that hateful viewpoint into all aspects of monkey culture, including religion. I think I explained that right. Let me know if I made it more confusing than I had too.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I'm a straight guy, and I don't think there is anything "fundamentally wrong" in liking guys.

Now, I think I'd be bothered if my gay friends made a pass on me, and I'd decline politely, and if they keep harassing me I might tell them to fuck off, but I don't feel that hitting on another guy is inherently wrong.

I would imagine that your irritation would probably be more of a function of the fact that your friends know that you're straight and hit on you anyway rather than their sexuality itself, no?

Pretty much, yes.

[Migdal Bavel]

It's not impossible to be homophobic without religion. It is very nearly impossible to defend homophobia without falling back to religion.

Arguments against homophobia not based in religion tend to get thrashed, but because the main principal of religion is "I believe x because I believe x" it's more resistant to criticism.

Is that true? A lot of the homophobia I've seen doesn't explicitly use any particularly religious arguments. There's closest one gets is 'it's unnatural' (which works without religion), for example. People argue that being gay leads to breakdown of the traditional family (which can work on a cultural level), that gay people are naturally different in some way other than 'liking the same gender', that there is some kind of gay agenda, or that white people need to breed more (see: this thread).
All those arguments are stupid, but trying to refute them with facts runs into the issue that homophobes are often highly resistant to such things (they know that academia is run by the gayluminati).

BV: Fair. But I'd argue that it's as easy to hold that people are naturally prejudiced and overcome that, as to argue that they become prejudiced. If you have Sage access, I'd argue that http://gpi.sagepub.com/content/15/6/725 would provide some evidence for that.

[Quokkastan]

It's not impossible to be homophobic without religion. It is very nearly impossible to defend homophobia without falling back to religion.

Arguments against homophobia not based in religion tend to get thrashed, but because the main principal of religion is "I believe x because I believe x" it's more resistant to criticism.

Is that true? A lot of the homophobia I've seen doesn't explicitly use any particularly religious arguments. There's closest one gets is 'it's unnatural' (which works without religion), for example. People argue that being gay leads to breakdown of the traditional family (which can work on a cultural level), that gay people are naturally different in some way other than 'liking the same gender', that there is some kind of gay agenda, or that white people need to breed more (see: this thread).
All those arguments are stupid, but trying to refute them with facts runs into the issue that homophobes are often highly resistant to such things (they know that academia is run by the gayluminati).

The "unnatural" one doesn't work without religion. You just have to point to how often you see it in nature.

People who call homosexuality "unnatural" are using a definition of the word removed from empiricism, and typically grounded in a religious view of human sexual relations.

[Esternial]

Is that true? A lot of the homophobia I've seen doesn't explicitly use any particularly religious arguments. There's closest one gets is 'it's unnatural' (which works without religion), for example. People argue that being gay leads to breakdown of the traditional family (which can work on a cultural level), that gay people are naturally different in some way other than 'liking the same gender', that there is some kind of gay agenda, or that white people need to breed more (see: this thread).
All those arguments are stupid, but trying to refute them with facts runs into the issue that homophobes are often highly resistant to such things (they know that academia is run by the gayluminati).

The "unnatural" one doesn't work without religion. You just have to point to how often you see it in nature.

People who call homosexuality "unnatural" are using a definition of the word removed from empiricism, and typically grounded in a religious view of human sexual relations.

People have a tendency to substitute "it is unnatural" in place of "it makes me uncomfortable".

[Migdal Bavel]

The "unnatural" one doesn't work without religion. You just have to point to how often you see it in nature.

People who call homosexuality "unnatural" are using a definition of the word removed from empiricism, and typically grounded in a religious view of human sexual relations.

People have a tendency to substitute "it is unnatural" in place of "it makes me uncomfortable".

This. Facts are often of limited usefulness in this case.