Why are most religious against homosexuality?

lazygal

I don't get it. Do they just find being gay weird, so they come out against it? Or are they worried for immortal souls and genuinely want to make sure they get into heaven? Why do so many world religions condemn gay people?

triple-M

lazygal wrote: »

I don't get it. Do they just find being gay weird, so they come out against it? Or are they worried for immortal souls and genuinely want to make sure they get into heaven? Why do so many world religions condemn gay people?

totally agree http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2012/05/18/nine-year-old-tells-god-hates-fags-church-god-hates-no-one/

AnarchistKen

Because a purely fictional character and his pals say so

LivelineDipso

Try getting up the steps of a church in rollerblades.

1ZRed

Permitting homosexuality means less followers for them and so less power.

It's better to scare fear into them and make it a taboo so people follow social norms and raise a family, regardless of their true sexuality, if it means those children adopt the religion and their religious organisation grows.

Nothing else matters to an organised religion. It's all about power and influence, morality doesn't seem to be the sole basis of it.

Arpa

I would think it is because the majority of religious scriptures were written at a time when science and biology were not understood. The canon of these religions are not in line with modern biological study and the promulgators of these laws are too narrow minded and proud to admit that the ideals they preach are wrong even if they believe them to be. If they admit they are wrong then anything else is open for debate. It's pedantry and insularity.

meoklmrk91

Cause the baby jebus says so. Well actually the bible does, but isn't that the same thing? Personally I think they are all just projecting because they are uncomfortable with their own sexuality but whatever.

Bad Santa

Cause they believe only women should be taken up the aisle.

Unique User Name

Because babies don't come out the bum

LivelineDipso

Bad Santa wrote: »

Cause they believe only women should be taken up the aisle.

I love theological euphemisms.

Gummy Panda

Because its a pain in the ass?


Haha :pac:

B.A._Baracus

lazygal wrote: »

I don't get it. Do they just find being gay weird, so they come out against it? Or are they worried for immortal souls and genuinely want to make sure they get into heaven? Why do so many world religions condemn gay people?

Alot of non-religious people dont like the idea of 2 men having sex. They feel its wrong or sick or what ever... Its the same mentality that religions take. Its just people.

Why do some people hate blacks?
Why do some people hate jews?

... just people. Its wrong. But there will always be discrimination sadly.

1ZRed

Arpa wrote: »

I would think it is because the majority of religious scriptures were written at a time when science and biology were not understood. The canon of these religions are not in line with modern biological study and the promulgators of these laws are too narrow minded and proud to admit that the ideals they preach are wrong even if they believe them to be. If they admit they are wrong then anything else is open for debate. It's pedantry and insularity.

Homosexuality wasn't frowned on by society until quite recently. Native Americans, Romans, Greeks didn't have a problem with the act let alone partnering them off.

Christianity also only started gaining massively in popularity once hell was invented as an inventive to join or else you'd spend eternity suffering. It's all on the bases that they want more people to join and letting two men and two women to pair off meant less followers for them.

Of course this isn't the only factor in why so many organised religions condemn homosexuality but it is a theory I've read and it's quite plausible at that.

COYVB

Most religious are against anything they're told to be against because they are unable, or unwilling, to actually think logically for themselves

McSheez

1ZRed wrote: »

Homosexuality wasn't frowned on by society until quite recently. Native Americans, Romans, Greeks didn't have a problem with the act let alone partnering them off.

Actually I think it was quite frowned on by Romans and they looked down on the Greeks because of it. Guess they weren't as forward thinking as their Peloponnesian comrades.

I reckon the church see them as a threat, they know homosexual = heathen = no butts in seats and are terrified it'll spread. Funny thing is though, so many priest must have entered the clergy in the first place BECAUSE they were gay and were afraid to embrace it.

Lawrence1895

Because they are hypocrites. Preaching love and understanding on one side, but calling homosexuals 'sick'. A bit of a contradiction, imo :mad:

UCDVet

1ZRed wrote: »

Homosexuality wasn't frowned on by society until quite recently. Native Americans, Romans, Greeks didn't have a problem with the act let alone partnering them off.

Christianity also only started gaining massively in popularity once hell was invented as an inventive to join or else you'd spend eternity suffering. It's all on the bases that they want more people to join and letting two men and two women to pair off meant less followers for them.

Of course this isn't the only factor in why so many organised religions condemn homosexuality but it is a theory I've read and it's quite plausible at that.

Yeah - but that's also true of pedophilia.....

krudler

UCDVet wrote: »

Yeah - but that's also true of pedophilia.....

Yeah because thats exactly the same thing, anyone want to compare homosexuality to riding animals? anyone? its usually the next step after comparing grown adults having sex to an adult having sex with a child.

Gummy Panda

krudler wrote: »

Yeah because thats exactly the same thing, anyone want to compare homosexuality to riding animals? anyone? its usually the next step after comparing grown adults having sex to an adult having sex with a child.

This always happens in an AH gay thread. I don't know why but I think there is some secret formula. This shít has happen before and will happen again

Grayson

I don't believe most religions do hate homosexuality or are against them. But I think the judeo christian ones are since they all originate from the same basic jewish texts.

1ZRed

UCDVet wrote: »

Yeah - but that's also true of pedophilia.....

Why is this always brought up eventually when talk turns to homosexuality?

Pedophilia isn't a sexual orientation and it doesn't belong in this discussion about sexuality.

Grayson

UCDVet wrote: »

Yeah - but that's also true of pedophilia.....

There have been studies which suggest that paedophilia is not harmful to children

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/jan/03/paedophilia-bringing-dark-desires-light

The article above is just some guy pretty much listing all the opinions.

(btw, before I have people screaming in outrage, I'm just saying that there are some professionals who this this. There are some who don't. Read the article and make your own mind up. IT's pretty much just repeating research for both sides, so everyone will find something they can agree with)

Gummy Panda

McSheez wrote: »

Actually I think it was quite frowned on by Romans and they looked down on the Greeks because of it. Guess they weren't as forward thinking as their Peloponnesian comrades.

I think being passive was frowned upon and falling in love with another man. Romans also frowned upon oral sex and seen it as the act of a slave.

Luca Brasi

Gummy Panda wrote: »

I think being passive was frowned upon and falling in love with another man. Romans also frowned upon oral sex and seen it as the act of a slave.

But the Greeks were in favour of adult men showing young men the ways of the world according to David Norris ex Presidential candidate

1ZRed

McSheez wrote: »

Actually I think it was quite frowned on by Romans and they looked down on the Greeks because of it. Guess they weren't as forward thinking as their Peloponnesian comrades.

It wasn't at all and quite common for men to have sex with other men if they chose to without any stigma.

The only thing was that it was better to be a top more so than a bottom as the perception of masculinity meant a lot to them - funnily enough that's why sex with other men was so commonly practised without discrimination, because it was seen as the most masculine act as it was with another man and more dominant.

efb

They need moar followers so- gays no! Women pregnant!

UCDVet

krudler wrote: »

Yeah because thats exactly the same thing, anyone want to compare homosexuality to riding animals? anyone? its usually the next step after comparing grown adults having sex to an adult having sex with a child.

Nobody said it was exactly the same thing. I certainly didn't.

The 'issue' of homosexuality should be decided on it's own merits. I've got nothing against gays. I think they should have ever single right straight people have.

But people often imply that because lots of other cultures historically thought homosexuality was cool, we should too. That's a logical fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum). And an easy way to point out how silly it is would be to use the same argument (lots of other cultures historically thought X was cool, we should too) is to use it for a value of X people don't think is cool at all.

Like pedophilia.

If someone is for or against gays - they should be that way for relevant reasons....not what a bunch of cultures used to do. Likewise, if someone is for or against pedophilia they should be that way for relevant reasons....not because a bunch of cultures used to do it.

padd b1975

Gummy Panda wrote: »

I think being passive was frowned upon and falling in love with another man. Romans also frowned upon oral sex and seen it as the act of a slave.

Yeah, heard that too.

If you weren't 'pitching', you were considered to be the lowest of the low.:cool:

1ZRed

Gummy Panda wrote: »

I think being passive was frowned upon and falling in love with another man. Romans also frowned upon oral sex and seen it as the act of a slave.

I know it was looked down on to bottom but two men could be married freely. There's also the mentality that if in war you would fight to protect who you love instead of just who you fight alongside with.

Never heard of the oral sex aspect of things, but considering how they viewed sex acts it wouldn't surprise me.

krudler

UCDVet wrote: »

Nobody said it was exactly the same thing. I certainly didn't.

The 'issue' of homosexuality should be decided on it's own merits. I've got nothing against gays. I think they should have ever single right straight people have.

But people often imply that because lots of other cultures historically thought homosexuality was cool, we should too. That's a logical fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum). And an easy way to point out how silly it is would be to use the same argument (lots of other cultures historically thought X was cool, we should too) is to use it for a value of X people don't think is cool at all.

Like pedophilia.

If someone is for or against gays - they should be that way for relevant reasons....not what a bunch of cultures used to do. Likewise, if someone is for or against pedophilia they should be that way for relevant reasons....not because a bunch of cultures used to do it.

Again what comparison is homosexuality and paedophilia? The bible advocates slavery, but hey we don't do that anymore. Because two grownups having a relationship hurts nobody, an adult having sex with a child does. comprende?

UCDVet

1ZRed wrote: »

Why is this always brought up eventually when talk turns to homosexuality?

Pedophilia isn't a sexual orientation and it doesn't belong in this discussion about sexuality.

Google has a cool feature where you can type 'define: something' and it will give you the definition.

define: homosexuality
a sexual attraction to (or sexual relations with) persons of the same sex.

define: pedophilia
Sexual feelings directed toward children.

The two concepts are very closely related. And they were both largely accepted by numerous cultures in the past.

My point is, we shouldn't really care what ancient X culture felt about homosexuality anymore than we should care what ancient X culture felt about pedophilia.

COYVB

UCDVet wrote: »

My point is, we shouldn't really care what ancient X culture felt about homosexuality anymore than we should care what ancient X culture felt about pedophilia.

Then we can write off every religion not founded in the last 100 years or so, right?

crockholm

How is it percieved in the non-abrahamic religions?

efb

Didn't OT prophets and Muhammad have young girl brides?

padd b1975

UCDVet wrote: »

Google has a cool feature where you can type 'define: something' and it will give you the definition.



The two concepts are very closely related. And they were both largely accepted by numerous cultures in the past.

My point is, we shouldn't really care what ancient X culture felt about homosexuality anymore than we should care what ancient X culture felt about pedophilia.

Yikes.

1ZRed

UCDVet wrote: »

Nobody said it was exactly the same thing. I certainly didn't.

The 'issue' of homosexuality should be decided on it's own merits. I've got nothing against gays. I think they should have ever single right straight people have.

But people often imply that because lots of other cultures historically thought homosexuality was cool, we should too. That's a logical fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum). And an easy way to point out how silly it is would be to use the same argument (lots of other cultures historically thought X was cool, we should too) is to use it for a value of X people don't think is cool at all.

And why shouldn't see homosexuality without a problem like so many thousands of cultures before us did? It only became wrong when organised religions conditioned society into thinking it was sick and a devious act punishable with an eternity in hell. No wonder it became such a condemnable 'sin' to people.

Give me a good, solid and logical reason why we shouldn't see it without a problem as they did, that's right, there's no reason not to.

Like pedophilia.

No, not like pedophilia.

If someone is for or against gays - they should be that way for relevant reasons....not what a bunch of cultures used to do. Likewise, if someone is for or against pedophilia they should be that way for relevant reasons....not because a bunch of cultures used to do it.

They should be against pedophilia for the one and only reason that it is non consensual and children are not developed enough mentally and physically for sex so they are vulnerable.

Again, this has absolutely no place in a discussion about two consensual adults of the same sex being discriminated against.

UCDVet

krudler wrote: »

Again what comparison is homosexuality and paedophilia? The bible advocates slavery, but hey we don't do that anymore. Because two grownups having a relationship hurts nobody, an adult having sex with a child does. comprende?

They are both sexual preferences.
They have both been culturally acceptable and culturally unacceptable.

You say that two grownups having a relationship hurts nobody, whereas an adult having sex with a child does - but that's a pretty big claim. People who are against homosexuality believe it does cause harm, whether to the participants (increased rates of disease) or to society as a whole.

Likewise, advocates of pedophilia felt that it was beneficial. Samurai warriors were encouraged to take a young male future-samurai and have a sexual relationship with him. It was believed it would strengthen the bond between them and that everyone benefited from it.

I'm not expressing an opinion on homosexuality or on pedophilia - I'm just saying we shouldn't care what ancient cultures felt about either. We should evaluate them on their own merits.

Heck, back when slavery was in favour - many people felt they were helping the slaves. They would take in 'savages' and provide them with food, shelter and introduce them to civilized living.

charlemont

Because they belong to the type of person that needs to be told how to live as a lot of them are too thick to figure it out for themselves.

COYVB

1ZRed wrote: »

They should be against pedophilia for the one and only reason that it is non consensual and children are not developed enough mentally and physically for sex so they are vulnerable.

Again, this has absolutely no place in a discussion about two consensual adults of the same sex being discriminated against.

Purely for the sake of playing devil's advocate, one could say that in ancient civilizations, given the much shorter life expectancy, that pedophilia was not actually pedophilia back then, however. Females would have been encouraged to start having babies as soon as their bodies were able for it to ensure the survival of the species. I believe the point, however erroneous, that the poster was trying to make was that modern society should not be held up by the ideals of millennia ago, given how different the world is. That's fine if that's the view the poster holds across the board, and assuming they also hold the view that things can and do change for the better, than the modern day acceptance of homosexuality is a good thing, which it of course is

Thrill

lazygal wrote: »

I don't get it. Do they just find being gay weird, so they come out against it?

The whole thing makes no sense to them.

UCDVet

COYVB wrote: »

Then we can write off every religion not founded in the last 100 years or so, right?

I'd argue we should write them all off.

philologos

lazygal wrote: »

I don't get it. Do they just find being gay weird, so they come out against it? Or are they worried for immortal souls and genuinely want to make sure they get into heaven? Why do so many world religions condemn gay people?

Christianity puts marriage across as the complementary union between a man and a woman (both different yet complementary) in a formal union before God. This was the order by which God created the world, and it's the order that God created humanity by. Christians also believe that the formal union between a man and a woman isn't just for the benefit of the couple themselves, but that the the union of a man and a woman is in order that God might be glorified, and that God might be served through it.

Christians believe that marriage is also a microcosm if you will of what the union between Jesus and the church should look like. The perfect union of Jesus with the people of God to serve Him clearly. Much in the same way as a man and a woman come before one before God, they serve Him insofar as they run a family, but they can also serve Him insofar as they can be great witnesses before Christ.

Christians believe that any union other than a marriage between a man and a woman is a distortion of what God has intended for relationships and sexual relationships within the world.

By the by it isn't just homosexuality, it is any sexual expression outside of a marriage, which would mean that Christians shouldn't engage in many things from sex in a relationship structure other than marriage, to the one night stand culture that exists in a lot of the Western world, to lusting after another woman making her a mere sex-object for your own gratification, to watching pornography and so on. Christians believe that any form of sexual expression outside of a marriage is a distortion and a perversion of what sex in it's appropriate context, a loving relationship between a man and a woman is meant to be.

In a sense homosexual activity (as opposed to whether or not people might have difficulty with same-sex attraction) is a human distortion of what God intended sexuality to me.

Many people who would hold mainline views on sexuality including quite a few pastors have struggled with homosexual attraction, but it is not the correct order for sexuality and they realise that they have a far better relationship through Jesus and that they are willing to give up anything for Him.

For example this is the pastor of a church in Oxford discussing his sexual orientation for an evangelical newspaper, and there was an article on The Gospel Coalition from another evangelical minister in the UK who also struggles with same-sex attraction discussing how he witnesses to the Gospel amongst LGBT people.

1ZRed

philologos wrote: »

In a sense homosexual activity (as opposed to whether or not people might have difficulty with same-sex attraction) is a human distortion of what God intended sexuality to be.

If god created man, and so everything about him which would include sexuality, then what the actual fuck is he bitching about? If he sees it as so wrong then it's his fuck up, and entirely his fault.

Many people who would hold mainline views on sexuality including quite a few pastors have struggled with homosexual attraction, but it is not the correct order for sexuality and they realise that they have a far better relationship through Jesus and that they are willing to give up anything for Him.

Thanks for enlightening me. Religion is a great one for that all right as it's well up to date on all matters sex and sexuality.

philologos

1ZRed wrote: »

If god created man, and so everything about him which would include sexuality, then what the actual fuck is he bitching about? If he sees it as so wrong then it's his fuck up, and entirely his fault.

That depends largely on whether you believe that sexuality is biologically determined or not. What I would say that even if people are attracted to X, Y or Z it doesn't mean that the physical act of sex with X, Y or Z is appropriate or correct. The same argument can be used in respect to people who believe that sex outside of marriage is OK, or that one night stands are OK.

Christians believe that marriage is the place for sexual expression so as a result they seek to live as God intended for them to live, and they aim to serve Him in that. Marriage isn't a selfish thing, it is an institution with wider importance from a Christian perspective. A marriage is a union between one another, but it is also a form of partnership with God Biblically.

Claiming that it is God's fault for how one decides to act is utterly bizarre.

1ZRed wrote: »

Thanks for enlightening me. Religion is a great one for that all right as it's well up to date on all matters sex and sexuality.

What do you mean by "up to date"? Is this synonymous with "agrees with you"?

Christianity isn't about whether or not it agrees with you. Christianity is about God's word to mankind. It is highly likely that many won't like it, but not liking something isn't an indication of how true it is.

COYVB

philologos wrote: »

Christians believe that any form of sexual expression outside of a marriage is a distortion and a perversion of what sex in it's appropriate context, a loving relationship between a man and a woman is meant to be.

That's perfectly fine, what I don't understand is why they feel the need to go on about it to people who clearly have no interest of being members of their club? In Christianity homosexuality is banned, that's great, that means that anyone who is engaging in homosexual behaviour is, by definition, not involved in Christianity, so why do those who are involved in it care what they do? Should they change their mind and want to become members, they'll have to knock the homosexuality on the head and do whatever is needed to join the club, but if they don't want to join why bother telling them they can't?

Isn't that a bit like "this is my gang and you can't play with us because you're not included in our rules"? Unless the person wanted to play, they wouldn't care, and their predisposition towards homosexuality, in the vast majority of cases, would mean they have no intention of being in your gang.

Would it not be a bit more conducive to productivity to make sure that all the members are toeing the club guidelines instead of going "ner ner ner ner ner, you can't join because you're gay and our god will see you burn in hell". Your god can do what he likes, these people don't believe in your definition of god

COYVB

philologos wrote: »

Claiming that it is God's fault for how one decides to act is utterly bizarre.

It's not quite as bizarre as you might think. I'm sure you're familiar with this, but in case you're not, if god is, as most believers believe, all knowing and all powerful, then there's no such thing as free will. For god to be all knowing, he knows what you're going to do before you do it, that means that your actions are predetermined, otherwise he wouldn't have the capacity to know before they happen.

If he is all powerful, then he has the ability to change what you will do, which again doesn't fit in with free will, because it would be him making that decision. So either he is all powerful and all knowing, and knows everything that will happen and has happened in the past, while also having the ability to change it, there is no free will, and therefore god is ultimately directly responsible for absolutely everything that happens within his created universe.

Either that or he isn't all knowing or all powerful... in which case free will certainly CAN exist, and he is more a custodian who tries to keep things on track, nudging them in the direction he'd like to see them go, but ultimately lacking the power to dictate complete direction

JupiterKid

Because religious people have a major problem with other people living their lives the way they want to and feel the need to impose their so-calked "morals" on others. It's all about control and making others miserable.

Religion - one of the greatest scourges of humanity.

lidllady

I'm going to leave this here...

This video addresses in depth all the biblical arguments that have been used against homosexuality and has over 475,000 views

Being gay and being christian are not mutully exclusive!

1ZRed

philologos wrote: »

That depends largely on whether you believe that sexuality is biologically determined or not.

It is scientific fact that sexuality is hardwired and not a choice. It's also widely accepted to be true by the vast majority too.

What I would say that even if people are attracted to X, Y or Z it doesn't mean that the physical act of sex with X, Y or Z is appropriate or correct.

Doesn't mean it's wrong either. I firmly belive that anything mutual and consenting is not wrong. If god has such a problem with sex and doing it out of marriage or only for procreation then he wouldn't have made it feel so feckin good. That's the point in doing that of he's so prudish about it?

A marriage is a union between one another, but it is also a form of partnership with God Biblically.

Ah this I agree with, "marriage is a union between one another" - no gender specifics.

But here, this is where the problems occur. You don't have a hold on marriage and what it means. It's a civil thing. It means whatever you want it to after -if you are religious, so you can't hold what you think marriage is over anyone else of different beliefs.

Claiming that it is God's fault for how one decides to act is utterly bizarre.

That's not my point. You're coming from the point of view that orientation is your own choice, it's not. The act is a choice but the primal drivers to do it is not.

So how is that fair? If God did create you along with your sexuality, then how come it's alright for a man and a woman to get married and then have sex, as it's then in wedlock, but not for two people of the same sex? -Baring in mind God created your sexuality and you can't fight or help that (as much as those closeted pastors like to think they can)

Why does he kick up such a fuss? Like, what's so different to have separate rules and praise one act, but dismiss the other? If the 'out of wedlock' issue makes all premarital sex so bad, regardless of sexuality, then surely wouldn't it make sense to say "yeah, you two lads or ladies get married and then it's grand".

That seems more sensible to me.

What do you mean by "up to date"? Is this synonymous with "agrees with you"?

No, I mean the world isn't like it was 2000 years ago. Time to catch up a bit.
I couldn't care they don't agree with me I'm just feeling curious and asking you questions.

philologos

COYVB wrote: »

That's perfectly fine, what I don't understand is why they feel the need to go on about it to people who clearly have no interest of being members of their club? In Christianity homosexuality is banned, that's great, that means that anyone who is engaging in homosexual behaviour is, by definition, not involved in Christianity, so why do those who are involved in it care what they do? Should they change their mind and want to become members, they'll have to knock the homosexuality on the head and do whatever is needed to join the club, but if they don't want to join why bother telling them they can't?

I don't feel the need to go on about it at all. In fact on the specific issue of homosexuality I don't discuss it much. I find that most atheists and agnostics who want to talk about the Gospel bring it up. They bring it up first much as the OP has brought it up first.

The simple fact of the matter is that Christians live according to Christian standards because we believe that God's way is the right way to live.

What I do make a key point of is accepting Jesus Christ as Lord, and Saviour of mankind. Namely that Jesus stood in our place on the cross so that we can be forgiven. The wonderful news that no matter who you are, no matter what you have done if you repent and accept Jesus you can be saved.

That's all people.

COYVB wrote: »

Isn't that a bit like "this is my gang and you can't play with us because you're not included in our rules"? Unless the person wanted to play, they wouldn't care, and their predisposition towards homosexuality, in the vast majority of cases, would mean they have no intention of being in your gang.

No, it's like saying the Gospel is good news for all including LGBT people provided all turn away from sin and accept the Gospel.

COYVB wrote: »

Would it not be a bit more conducive to productivity to make sure that all the members are toeing the club guidelines instead of going "ner ner ner ner ner, you can't join because you're gay and our god will see you burn in hell". Your god can do what he likes, these people don't believe in your definition of god

I don't believe that gay people will automatically burn in hell.
I don't believe automatically that any other demographic will either.
I don't gloat at the idea of people going to hell. I find it deeply tragic, and saddening actually. I don't want anyone to go there, even my worst enemy.

You evidently don't understand what Bible believing Christians actually believe in respect to this subject.

In fact I long that all people would be saved and turn to Jesus as Lord irrespective of sexual inclination.

You don't know what my definition of God (although it isn't my definition, it's about God's definition of Himself as revealed in Scripture) is clearly, so why are you ranting about it?

fasttalkerchat

Probably because they were fond of the idea of inducing shame... for other reasons.
An easy way to do this is to make you feel shame for any sexual "perversions".




Note that I use the word perversions as homosexuality would have fallen into that category then.