Is homophobia linked to religion?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Religion gives a strong moral justification for homophobia. Without religion, I can't come to a rational reason why homophobia would exist without said person just being an asshole.

Edit: bloody phone

And that is exactly why it would exist, to be honest.

Even without religion, people are assholes, and will keep being assholes.

You won't get rid of the assholes, ever.

I have a feeling that people who are homophobic and use religion are simply assholes who use religion as a justification.

[Hladgos]

Religion gives a strong moral justification for homophobia. Without religion, I can't come to a rational reason why homophobia would exist without said person just being an asshole.

Edit: bloody phone

And that is exactly why it would exist, to be honest.

Even without religion, people are assholes, and will keep being assholes.

You won't get rid of the assholes, ever.

And that's why the gays are here to eat them for breakfast and plug em tight with a side of sausage!

[Lady Scylla]

Religion gives a strong moral justification for homophobia. Without religion, I can't come to a rational reason why homophobia would exist without said person just being an asshole.

Edit: bloody phone

And that is exactly why it would exist, to be honest.

Even without religion, people are assholes, and will keep being assholes.

You won't get rid of the assholes, ever.

I have a feeling that people who are homophobic and use religion are simply assholes who use religion as a justification.

Yeah, the only difference I can come to is that theists can deflect such criticism to their religion.

[Salus Maior]

Religion gives a strong moral justification for homophobia. Without religion, I can't come to a rational reason why homophobia would exist without said person just being an asshole.

Edit: bloody phone

Though for someone who is non-religious then you'd say that religion is borne from society, it wouldn't just pop up the way it was, right?

So, "homophobia" would have to come from the source of religion as well.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

And that is exactly why it would exist, to be honest.

Even without religion, people are assholes, and will keep being assholes.

You won't get rid of the assholes, ever.

I have a feeling that people who are homophobic and use religion are simply assholes who use religion as a justification.

Yeah, the only difference I can come to is that theists can deflect such criticism to their religion.

That's not necessarily a fault of religion, to be honest.

It's a fault of the asshole using religion to justify their assholery.

[Lady Scylla]

Religion gives a strong moral justification for homophobia. Without religion, I can't come to a rational reason why homophobia would exist without said person just being an asshole.

Edit: bloody phone

Though for someone who is non-religious then you'd say that religion is borne from society, it wouldn't just pop up the way it was, right?

So, "homophobia" would have to come from the source of religion as well.

What? I can't parse that first bit.

[Lady Scylla]

Yeah, the only difference I can come to is that theists can deflect such criticism to their religion.

That's not necessarily a fault of religion, to be honest.

It's a fault of the asshole using religion to justify their assholery.

Pretty much.

[Urran]

a phobia is an unjustified fear of something. so disagreeing with homosexuality is not homophobia.

people that disagree with homosexuality are likely most common in the Muslim, Christian, and Jewish faiths, but legitimate fear of homosexuals I'd argue is quite rare. Being afraid of a sexual orientation is just silly.

[Salus Maior]

Though for someone who is non-religious then you'd say that religion is borne from society, it wouldn't just pop up the way it was, right?

So, "homophobia" would have to come from the source of religion as well.

What? I can't parse that first bit.

The point is, how could homophobia come from religion if religion is a by-product of society? Wouldn't religion have picked that up from society?

[Alvecia]

a phobia is an unjustified fear of something. so disagreeing with homosexuality is not homophobia.

people that disagree with homosexuality are likely most common in the Muslim, Christian, and Jewish faiths, but legitimate fear of homosexuals I'd argue is quite rare. Being afraid of a sexual orientation is just silly.

I think at this point the word is more well know for it's colloquial meaning rather than it's etymological meaning.

[Gages Icelandic Army]

Religion gives a strong moral justification for homophobia. Without religion, I can't come to a rational reason why homophobia would exist without said person just being an asshole.

Edit: bloody phone

Though for someone who is non-religious then you'd say that religion is borne from society, it wouldn't just pop up the way it was, right?

So, "homophobia" would have to come from the source of religion as well.

I would agree with you.

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 basic morals (theft, 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 that...
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.

[Urran]

I think at this point the word is more well know for it's colloquial meaning rather than it's etymological meaning.

And this grates on my nerves. Just because people say that it means one thing in common speech does not change the meaning of the word "phobia".

[Gages Icelandic Army]

I kind of already posted that, but me and some friends in sociology argue a lot and I kind of want to see if this argument can't stand the test of debate.

[Lady Scylla]

a phobia is an unjustified fear of something. so disagreeing with homosexuality is not homophobia.

people that disagree with homosexuality are likely most common in the Muslim, Christian, and Jewish faiths, but legitimate fear of homosexuals I'd argue is quite rare. Being afraid of a sexual orientation is just silly.

While the definition of those parts isn't wrong, people do not generally associate it with their literal definition. It can also be said that fear can breed contempt and ignorance.

[Alvecia]

I think at this point the word is more well know for it's colloquial meaning rather than it's etymological meaning.

And this grates on my nerves. Just because people say that it means one thing in common speech does not change the meaning of the word "phobia".

It doesn't change the etymological meaning, no. But it words mean whatever people use them to mean. That's just how language evolves.

[Lady Scylla]

What? I can't parse that first bit.

The point is, how could homophobia come from religion if religion is a by-product of society? Wouldn't religion have picked that up from society?

...okay? Where are you getting this from?

[Alvecia]

What? I can't parse that first bit.

The point is, how could homophobia come from religion if religion is a by-product of society? Wouldn't religion have picked that up from society?

To be honest that's a bit like saying "how can glass come from sand if sand is a by product of rocks".
All you're really doing is shifting the production queue down.

[Urran]

a phobia is an unjustified fear of something. so disagreeing with homosexuality is not homophobia.

people that disagree with homosexuality are likely most common in the Muslim, Christian, and Jewish faiths, but legitimate fear of homosexuals I'd argue is quite rare. Being afraid of a sexual orientation is just silly.

While the definition of those parts isn't wrong, people do not generally associate it with their literal definition. It can also be said that fear can breed contempt and ignorance.

The word "phobia" is a strong one. It has a justified negative stigma around it. I believe that another word could be found that is not as stigmatized and doesn't create such an emotionally charged atmosphere whenever it is used. Once you start throwing words like "phobia" around in already politically charged discussions then any chance of a civil conversation is dashed.

[Lady Scylla]

I think at this point the word is more well know for it's colloquial meaning rather than it's etymological meaning.

And this grates on my nerves. Just because people say that it means one thing in common speech does not change the meaning of the word "phobia".

It doesn't but language is part literal and part colloquial. There's plenty if words that have changed meaning, that we use everyday, because of that.

[Gages Icelandic Army]

The point is, how could homophobia come from religion if religion is a by-product of society? Wouldn't religion have picked that up from society?

...okay? Where are you getting this from?

Read my long post! It explains it! I want people to attack it if possible!

[Lady Scylla]

While the definition of those parts isn't wrong, people do not generally associate it with their literal definition. It can also be said that fear can breed contempt and ignorance.

The word "phobia" is a strong one. It has a justified negative stigma around it. I believe that another word could be found that is not as stigmatized and doesn't create such an emotionally charged atmosphere whenever it is used. Once you start throwing words like "phobia" around in already politically charged discussions then any chance of a civil conversation is dashed.

The whole definition argument is little more than one's attempt to defer criticism. As such, I'll still use the term.

[Urran]

...okay? Where are you getting this from?

Read my long post! It explains it! I want people to attack it if possible!

No no no. This is not how discussions work. I must attack you as a person and threaten your physical well being and insult your mother. Don't you know that that is how discussions work in 2016 you-you hamster!

[Neanderthaland]

It's a fairly well-known fact. I remember hearing about it in a high school level psychology course way back in the day.

If it's a very well known fact then somebody here can provide the very well known empirical evidence.

I'm not having much luck with a google search, and it's more than a little off-topic.

But going from memory: Both begin with arousal. This is arousal in the biological sense, meaning alterations in heart rate, respiration, and the distribution of blood in the tissues. The basic features of both sexual arousal and a fight or flight response are essentially the same, and it's easy for the brain to misinterpret them and act inappropriately. This is the reason why you see things like lions and koalas flipping out and mauling their partners after coitus.

Although it might be a mistake to attribute this to the "mammalian brain." As far as I know all amniotes have essentially the same endocrine system.

[Hobbeebia]

My adversion, not fear, of Homosexuality is 100% based in the idea that nature created these parts for a purpose of procreation. Engaging in acts that are contrary to this violates the purpose of the parts and there naturally intended use.

Not you may commence with the lambasting of my character and how I'm a dirty heretic!

[Alvecia]

My adversion, not fear, of Homosexuality is 100% based in the idea that nature created these parts for a purpose of procreation. Engaging in acts that are contrary to this violates the purpose of the parts and there naturally intended use.

Not you may commence with the lambasting of my character and how I'm a dirty heretic!

Humans do a shit ton of stuff that is not natural, why is this any different?