On blaming religion for homophobia

[Ecelea]

Like attracts like, and people trust things that they recognize, whether there's are divine forces at work or not. Simple as that.

[Neanderthaland]

Like attracts like, and people trust things that they recognize, whether there's are divine forces at work or not. Simple as that.

If that were a universal principal, then homophobia wouldn't be an issue.

[Keldros]

http://www.teenvogue.com/story/video-sh ... nd-consent

Look at that face. It's like George Costanza and Rachel Maddow were fused in the telepod.

[The of Japan]

What if people are born homophobic?

Just as false as the notion that people are born of a gender different than the 2 sexes.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Born being grossed out by gays on a purely personal level? Sure, even I feel that way to some degree and I support gay rights.

Born thinking it's something to discriminate over? Only partly, at most, and it can be overcome, or the USA wouldn't have made so much progress on it.

I just wonder if some of the revulsion many have towards homosexuality is instinctual. Perhaps dating to a time before hazmat suits / PPE / condoms put a dent in STD epidemiology.

That too, yes.

Which is why I've long thought the "ick factor" narrative discredited those who held it; if it were about the ick factor, did said ick factor just vanish into thin air in order for support for gay marriage to increase?

[Cetacea]

have you ever had sex with a condom on

Condoms didn't exist back then.

actually its quite the opposite, most early humans didn't associate sex directly with reproduction and most didn't have a strict division of labour by gender either.

If we accept that humans evolved in tropical climates where food production was relatively simple we see that both males and females could engage in harvesting work and thus were relatively 'equal' in their social relations and access to resources. Matriarchs would lead their households while males were there for defense and/or hunting. There is less emphasis on gender division in these societies, transexuals and other men acting as women is accepted and homosexual sex is 'just a thing' with little stigma attached.

In less hospitable 'northern' regions you get desert and then 'cold' which makes the work of agriculture much more difficult. The plough in particular needs strength to use and thus Male 'prowess' is emphasized, males do both the work of food production and defence and thus become identified as 'land holders', women enter a subservient role.
Ironically of course the Romans took this emphasis on Masculine dominance to such an extent that homosexuality became an acceptable expression of the dominance-submission dynamic in society. A Roman citizen was always dominant even when the partner was male.

It is perhaps this idea of subservience which leads to modern homophobia, as society has rejected the Roman ideal of unequal relations and instead emphasized the notion that each man should be Master of his own domain.

I find it a bit difficult to believe there was less emphasis on gender role in prehistoric times. From what I understood, women were restricted to gathering water, collecting fruits and vegetables, and caring for children while men hunted and provided protection for the tribe. That sounds a strong emphasis on gender rules to me. I've never heard of prehistoric acceptance of homosexuality and transgenderism, you wouldn't happen to have some sources would you? Or were you making presumptions like I was? Genuinely curious.

The Romans I already knew about, same goes for the desert-dwelling cultures both in warm and cool climates.

The Hunter-Gatherer split only happens for large game which again is very much climate dependent. Females are quite capable of hunting chickens, lizards and other small game as well as collecting shellfish, eggs and honey. Moreover really early humans were scavengers not hunters and there is some speculation that it was a symbiotic relationship with canines that first gave upright apes access to meat.

humans (like Bonobos) have seperated sex from reproduction and also do it for fun, and as human males and human females are of comparible size theres no reason to think that gender dominance is innate (compare humans to Gorillas where the males a much larger than females). Of course at puberty humand do develop female mammaries and male penis as direct sex markers so there is some reproductive imperative still involved.
Also interestingly motherless chimps have been observed taking on a passive role, similar to female behaviour, in order to gain favour with older male Chimps - that suggest gender is learned behaviour.

Of course our knowledge of truely early humans is of course speculative based on different interpretations of artifacts and more 'recent' observations of hunter-gatherer societies as well as the records of ancient greek and other scholars. For instance Herodotus talks about the Enarei who were Scythian shaman known to be effeminate cross dressers. They were also beleived to drink mares urine in order to raise their own estrogen levels.

We also observe transvestitism in South East Asia and the Pacific, the more famous example being the Five Genders identified by the Bugis of Sulawesi.

[Sovaal]

Condoms didn't exist back then.



I find it a bit difficult to believe there was less emphasis on gender role in prehistoric times. From what I understood, women were restricted to gathering water, collecting fruits and vegetables, and caring for children while men hunted and provided protection for the tribe. That sounds a strong emphasis on gender rules to me. I've never heard of prehistoric acceptance of homosexuality and transgenderism, you wouldn't happen to have some sources would you? Or were you making presumptions like I was? Genuinely curious.

The Romans I already knew about, same goes for the desert-dwelling cultures both in warm and cool climates.

The Hunter-Gatherer split only happens for large game which again is very much climate dependent. Females are quite capable of hunting chickens, lizards and other small game as well as collecting shellfish, eggs and honey. Moreover really early humans were scavengers not hunters and there is some speculation that it was a symbiotic relationship with canines that first gave upright apes access to meat.

Our knowledge of truely early humans is of course speculative based on different interpretations of artifacts and more 'recent' observations of hunter-gatherer societies as well as the records of ancient greek and other scholars. For instance Herodotus talks about the Enarei who were Scythian shaman known to be effeminate cross dressers. They were also beleived to drink mares urine in order to raise their own estrogen levels.

We also observe transvestitism in South East Asia and the Pacific, the more famous example being the Five Genders identified by the Bugis of Sulawesi.

Got a source for that? For everything I've read on the subject has it put that humans having access to meat is what helped form our bond with dogs. And plenty of other Homo species hunted animals as well.

[Cetacea]

The Hunter-Gatherer split only happens for large game which again is very much climate dependent. Females are quite capable of hunting chickens, lizards and other small game as well as collecting shellfish, eggs and honey. Moreover really early humans were scavengers not hunters and there is some speculation that it was a symbiotic relationship with canines that first gave upright apes access to meat.

Our knowledge of truely early humans is of course speculative based on different interpretations of artifacts and more 'recent' observations of hunter-gatherer societies as well as the records of ancient greek and other scholars. For instance Herodotus talks about the Enarei who were Scythian shaman known to be effeminate cross dressers. They were also beleived to drink mares urine in order to raise their own estrogen levels.

We also observe transvestitism in South East Asia and the Pacific, the more famous example being the Five Genders identified by the Bugis of Sulawesi.

Got a source for that? For everything I've read on the subject has it put that humans having access to meat is what helped form our bond with dogs. And plenty of other Homo species hunted animals as well.

http://www.academia.edu/17392396/Dogs_make_us_human p58-59 has some discussion of Big Game hunting

[Catochristoferson]

OP is right, but fails to realize that gender roles also kind of come from religion.

Although there are examples of Secular countries, such as China or the USSR, being aggressively homophobic, therefore homophobia and gender roles don't necessarily require religion. But historically religion is where gender roles come from.

[Greed and Death]

I would say the ultimate source is the principle of duty to one's family.

Throughout most of human history, having children was considered vitally important - especially for women, but also for men. A young person was expected to get married and have children (the more the better, since you don't know how many will actually survive) to continue the family line. Families who could not produce children were often regarded as cursed, and even blamed for having somehow brought this terrible shame upon themselves. So the idea of someone intentionally deciding to follow a lifestyle that couldn't produce children, would be regarded as a sort of treason to one's family.

This also explains why many historical societies had no problem with people engaging in the occasional gay fling on the side, as long as they were married to a partner of the opposite sex and produced children. The modern world, however, has constructed the idea that most people are exclusively gay or straight, so if you're gay that means you are exclusively interested in people of the same sex. Which means you definitely won't produce children for your family. This is probably the reason why people have started being opposed to the sexual orientation itself, rather than just to homosexual acts.

China is running into an issue with a shortage of brides for their men. A lesbian couple deprives two men of wives. China's anti LGBT laws will primarily focus on the women and they will ignore gay men for the most part. The thing I can say about the govnerment is their policies are brutally efficient.

[Nulla Bellum]

I just wonder if some of the revulsion many have towards homosexuality is instinctual. Perhaps dating to a time before hazmat suits / PPE / condoms put a dent in STD epidemiology.

That too, yes.

Which is why I've long thought the "ick factor" narrative discredited those who held it; if it were about the ick factor, did said ick factor just vanish into thin air in order for support for gay marriage to increase?

The "ick factor" stops at the personal individual and the freedom of association. One can find homosexuality disgusting and avoid having gay sex, but that grants no right to ban consensual homosexuality in others.

I *hate* tomatoes (to the point I can projectile vomit just by imagining a tomato touched my food) but I have no right to demand grocery stores stop selling tomatoes.

[United Muscovite Nations]

OP is right, but fails to realize that gender roles also kind of come from religion.

Although there are examples of Secular countries, such as China or the USSR, being aggressively homophobic, therefore homophobia and gender roles don't necessarily require religion. But historically religion is where gender roles come from.

Seems fairly unlikely since the vast majority of societies have pretty much the same gender roles.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

China is running into an issue with a shortage of brides for their men. A lesbian couple deprives two men of wives.

So are they going to force them to marry men or what?

[Greed and Death]

China is running into an issue with a shortage of brides for their men. A lesbian couple deprives two men of wives.

So are they going to force them to marry men or what?

When homophobic policies are introduced a great many homosexuals marry members of the opposite sex in order to conceal their identity. The US in the 1950s this seemed to be common.

[Olerand]

Liberalization of mores, which weakens a State's control of societal and cultural values and attitudes?

That, or a cultural tradition of homophobia.

When not religion, it's those two, almost always.

[Trinity Commonwealth]

Communists are known for this type of crap. Look at North Korea for example. You'll get shot if you're gay.

I'm honestly not a big fan of homosexuality (not really much on female homosexuality. Just male), but I do not interfere in their lives like these maniacs in China. It's funny too, because their ideology supposed to advocate for homosexual rights. It makes me laugh on how much of a lie communist countries turn out to be.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

So are they going to force them to marry men or what?

When homophobic policies are introduced a great many homosexuals marry members of the opposite sex in order to conceal their identity. The US in the 1950s this seemed to be common.

So... they're doing this to give a few more men wives by causing the small fraction of women who are lesbians to enter sham marriages to conceal their identities? Wouldn't that be cancelled out by the small fraction of men who are homosexuals wanting wives when they otherwise wouldn't, (ie. wives that could've gone to straight men) in order to conceal their own identities?

[Salus Maior]

China also has an itchy banning finger when it comes to the internet, mind.

They also banned Winnie the Pooh because some people apparently made comparisons with him and Xi Jinping.

[Purpelia]

What I think is that I don't have to because there is really nothing to think about. People are complex creatures with distinct individual motivations. Therefore any and all sphere of human opinion and behavior, hatred of homosexuals included, is complex and will have reasons which are individual to that persons culture, ethnic and religious background and everything else that makes up his or her personality. There is no one single reason for any of it that fits all. And no single explanation that fits all. Therefore, it is ludicrous to proclaim that you can somehow absolve any one potential reason (like religion) by finding another reason that fits too.

Different people do the same thing for different reasons. It is that simple.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

People are complex creatures with distinct individual motivations. Therefore any and all sphere of human opinion and behavior, hatred of homosexuals included, is complex and will have reasons which are individual to that persons culture, ethnic and religious background and everything else that makes up his or her personality.

The point is to ask where the culture, ethnic, and religious background got the idea.

[Democratic Communist Federation]

Homophobia (aka heterosexism) is one of the contradictions of capitalism.

Go on, explain.

In other words, the capitalist system has supported a male dominated society and, beginning in the mid-twentieth century, the nuclear family. Same-sex relationships are, in the context of modern capitalism, nonproductive.

[Salus Maior]

Go on, explain.

In other words, the capitalist system has supported a male dominated society and, beginning in the mid-twentieth century, the nuclear family. Same-sex relationships are, in the context of modern capitalism, nonproductive.

Daily reminder that homosexuality was looked down upon in Soviet Russia. In fact, I believe it was illegal.

Of course, they weren't real communists, right?

[Democratic Communist Federation]

Of course, they weren't real communists, right?

I am not going to judge who is and who is not a real communist. However, if you are asking me, as a Luxemburgist, whether I like Bolshevism, the answer is "no."

[Pope Joan]

Personally, I think it's about gender roles. Hell, that's one of the few things I'd agree with Ms. Magazine on. Both religion and China adopt gender roles for different reasons, and homosexuality flies in the face of gender roles either way.

I'm gonna agree with you there, OP. I have held the opinion that homophobia is ultimately rooted in sexism for a while now, and it makes sense, given how homophobic rhetoric and actions are generally framed. The problem of gender and gender roles is almost always present in some way, and it usually seems to go hand in hand with toxic masculinity and what it entails, in terms of both how people police men's gender, gender expression and sexuality, and how many men act towards women who have sex with women, which often involves an apparent sense of sexual entitlement towards said women.

Ultimately, I think blaming religion for homophobia is a gross oversimplification (one I might have committed myself at some point, given that I went through a bit of a smug atheist period once), and isn't particularly helpful in the long run.

I agree. Homophobia seems to cut across many cultures and systems. It is disingenuous to blame religion alone for this phenomenon.
Soviet Russia was not too friendly either.

[Imperium Sidhicum]

Well, if it doesn't serve the state interests somehow, then there is no reason for it to exist. Sure, the more harmless forms of unproductive activities can be tolerated, but when it comes down to something as serious as sexual preferences, which directly affect the individual's capacity (or rather, inclination) to produce human resources, obviously the authorities will feel the need to step in and make sure such unproductive inclinations are not tolerated by law and society at large.

Every newborn is a future worker, soldier, scientist, and most importantly - taxpayer. Since homosexuals cannot procreate for obvious reasons, their model of relationship obviously will find little support in a strongly pro-state society.