Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Why are religions against being gay?

  • 05-08-2020 5:01pm
    #1
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,483 ✭✭✭


    I've heard many theories for this. It's a known fact that religions (the Abrahamic ones mostly) condemn homosexuality.

    The main theory I've heard was that early primitive societies overemphazized the importance of traditional gender dynamics/relationships in order to survive the harsh times. That meant men could only marry one woman (polygamy has been common in most of history). Men were not allowed to be feminine and homosexuals were abhorred. This one actually seems to make sense as it seems to be a trend today. The wealthier countries in the world are less homophobic because traditional gender dynamics are less important for survival.

    The other theory I've heard is that it was done to simply stop rampant STD's spreading. It's undeniable that bi/gay man have higher STD rates so perhaps ancient people noticed this and made homosexual sex a sin.


«1

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 927 ✭✭✭BuboBubo


    Historically seen as unnatural I'm guessing. We should go forth and multiply, or other nonsense.

    The Sodom and Gomorrah story, coupled with the excesses of the Romans - the "bad guys" in a religious context.

    Better for them to make us all God fearing, compliant, and not promiscuous = easier to control and extort money from people.

    As a woman, I believe religion hasn't been fair to us either, I believe in God, but cut out the middle-man myself. Organised religion is just a money grab imo. Nobody should be marginalised for doing anything involving consensual adults.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 326 ✭✭dzsfah2xoynme9


    I'm guessing most top priests, bishops, imams, rabbis favoured a bit of the auld sausage but didn't want to reveal it in case they lost their power and money..


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,445 ✭✭✭Rodney Bathgate


    I'm guessing most top priests, bishops, imams, rabbis favoured a bit of the auld sausage but didn't want to reveal it in case they lost their power and money..

    At least you included most of the main religions there so no one feels left out.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,907 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Because the connection between sex and reproduction was a much bigger dimension of sex for early societies than it is for us. And because, with high rates of child mortality, reproduction is not something that can be taken for granted. And because, with everyone's welfare, and even survival, being closely bound up with the welfare and success of the extended family and of the clan, successful reproduction was not a purely private concern.

    So the main objection to homosexuality was that it didn't give rise to little kiddies. And, since that was so obviously the whole point of sex, that was a distortion or perversion of sex. And, since having little kiddies was a really important thing for the group, it was a really bad, dangerous distortion or perversion.

    There was a second dimension to this, which was that in the early days the Abrahamic religions (and other religions in the neighbourhood) had no concept of an afterlife, or no clear concept. Whatever survived of you after death - your legacy, your continued existence, your importance to other people and to the world - resided in your descendants. So having descendants was really important; it was the point of living. So, again, because homosexuality wasn't reproductive it was seen as nihilistic; a rejection of your own value, or of the value of your own life. That was very disturbing.

    Not all religions were necessarily down on gay sex, as such. There could be a social, and even religious, place for gay sex provided it didn't stop men from forming heterosexual partnerships and having kids. (The role of gay sex in classical Greek society is often pointed to to illustrate this.) But the idea of being gay, of having a fixed or even exclusive preference for same-sex relationships, was really transgressive.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,404 ✭✭✭Justin Credible Darts


    anyone that believes in an invisible man in the sky is always going to come up with an excuse to believe in utter nonsense


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,316 ✭✭✭nthclare


    Supposedly there was great orgies in the seminary back in the day and if you've a Grindr app on your phone it would probably light up if you were around Maynooth or the Vatican.

    Other religions besides the Abrahamic's aren't as obsessed or strident about manly love.

    I swing both ways myself and I enjoy it, it's great.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,386 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    So the main objection to homosexuality was that it didn't give rise to little kiddies.
    No doubt the same reason that religious people object to abortion and contraception in general - these prevent little kiddies too.

    Also, with the LGBT+ population between one and five percent of the overall population, it's an easy outgroup to create - small enough to be recognizable and to declare a looming threat, but neither big enough to cause problems nor to have much political power. Neutralizing the power of sexual attraction might also play a part - there can't be anything more frustrating than knowing that you're attractive enough to acquire an advantage over the opposite sex, only to learn that this advantage doesn't work with some people.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 14,311 ✭✭✭✭weldoninhio


    Homosexuality = no kids = no future customers. Simple as that.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,685 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    Because the connection between sex and reproduction was a much bigger dimension of sex for early societies than it is for us. And because, with high rates of child mortality, reproduction is not something that can be taken for granted. And because, with everyone's welfare, and even survival, being closely bound up with the welfare and success of the extended family and of the clan, successful reproduction was not a purely private concern.

    I agree with your explanation above. What's interesting is that in order to become established as a nascent religion, Christianity had to be very pragmatic in terms of aligning its needs with those of its adherents and their society. Roll forward a couple of centuries and this pragmatism has atrophied into dogma that runs contrary to the interests of modern society. We don't have high childhood mortality rates, we don't want our populations to expand exponentially and we realise the importance of sex beyond reproduction. We also have considerably progressed notions such as egalitarianism. I suspect one of the major reasons the church is dying out in this country and elsewhere is it has failed to stay aligned with the needs of a modern society. The main appeal with Christianities regressive attitude to sex and sexuality these days seems to largely lie with the homophobic and misogynistic elements of the far right.


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,873 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    Some people really like the parts of religion that excuse them behaving as an azzhole. Look at your man Israel Falou. He loves the bits of Christianity that allow him to have a pop at gays and then gets to play the martyr (along with getting millions in a payout). He also used religion to be the only player not to kneel in solidarity with BLM because he "only knees for for god".

    Some peope just like that fact that religion gives them cover to be a dick.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    smacl wrote: »
    I agree with your explanation above. What's interesting is that in order to become established as a nascent religion, Christianity had to be very pragmatic in terms of aligning its needs with those of its adherents and their society. Roll forward a couple of centuries and this pragmatism has atrophied into dogma that runs contrary to the interests of modern society. We don't have high childhood mortality rates, we don't want our populations to expand exponentially and we realise the importance of sex beyond reproduction. We also have considerably progressed notions such as egalitarianism. I suspect one of the major reasons the church is dying out in this country and elsewhere is it has failed to stay aligned with the needs of a modern society. The main appeal with Christianities regressive attitude to sex and sexuality these days seems to largely lie with the homophobic and misogynistic elements of the far right.

    The churches are in a bind though. Change the rules and they admit they don't have doctrine based on divine revelation but can modernise and adapt bsed on what mere mortals deem appropriate.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,907 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    lazygal wrote: »
    The churches are in a bind though. Change the rules and they admit they don't have doctrine based on divine revelation but can modernise and adapt bsed on what mere mortals deem appropriate.
    Mmm. False dichotomy there, I think. You can believe that a particular teaching has a supernaturally-guaranteed objective truth/validity, and at the same time that its application is a matter that has to be worked out at a particular time and in particular circumstances. The successful religions (and, its present circumstances notwithstanding, I think we must count Christianity among them) have traditionally been pretty adept at this.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,404 ✭✭✭Justin Credible Darts


    Homosexuality = no kids = no future customers. Simple as that.




    Ha ! very good....
    Thing is gay couples are as likely to adopt as much as straight couples, in fact more likely to be accepted for adoption with all this political correctness these days., but that is another argument.
    However , church and god are two completely different things.

    The church hated gays when it suited them, and are as likely to make out their doctrine is accepting now if it suited the church's cause.These people are professional liars.
    We all know plenty people who go to mass, like to give the impression they are religious, but thats all just an image they put on.

    I despise the church as a whole, even if there are some decent individuals connected to it.


    As for God, I dont believe in that, its just Santa for grown ups, but because the church brainwashed me as a child with their mumbo jumbo, telling me about communion, brown catechism etc part of me , the optimist in me sort of hopes I am wrong and there is a god, but the realist in me tells me how utterly ridiculous the whole notion of the invisible man is.




    There is this myth you need religion or god to be a decent person.
    You can have decency, empathy, compassion, and love for your fellow humans, be accepting of all colours, creeds, gay people etc and not believe in god or the church,
    There was never any agnostic crusades, no atheist inquisitions, all that type of stuff was left for the so called religious people.
    go figure


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 14,311 ✭✭✭✭weldoninhio


    Ha ! very good....
    Thing is gay couples are as likely to adopt as much as straight couples, in fact more likely to be accepted for adoption with all this political correctness these days., but that is another argument.
    However , church and god are two completely different things.

    The church hated gays when it suited them, and are as likely to make out their doctrine is accepting now if it suited the church's cause.These people are professional liars.
    We all know plenty people who go to mass, like to give the impression they are religious, but thats all just an image they put on.

    I despise the church as a whole, even if there are some decent individuals connected to it.


    As for God, I dont believe in that, its just Santa for grown ups, but because the church brainwashed me as a child with their mumbo jumbo, telling me about communion, brown catechism etc part of me , the optimist in me sort of hopes I am wrong and there is a god, but the realist in me tells me how utterly ridiculous the whole notion of the invisible man is.




    There is this myth you need religion or god to be a decent person.
    You can have decency, empathy, compassion, and love for your fellow humans, be accepting of all colours, creeds, gay people etc and not believe in god or the church,
    There was never any agnostic crusades, no atheist inquisitions, all that type of stuff was left for the so called religious people.
    go figure

    Yes, but the bible or the Qaran weren't written recently. Way back when, gays would not have children. These books were written by men of that time.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,404 ✭✭✭Justin Credible Darts


    Oh you mean them books of mumbo jumbo written by men and altered over time, that people think is the word of a fictitious being.

    If someone is the sort of person to hate another because it says it in an ancient book, then that person is using that mumbo jumbo as a front to hide behind to explain their own bigotry and hatred.


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,873 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    The religions change over time. They have to wait until the change doesn't matter anymore but I'm confident that the Catholics will change to the point that they'll say they were never really opposed to the gays.

    An example is that divorced people were not welcome in Catholic mass in the past. Now it's absolutely no issue. They just have to protest an play the victim and then change their tune in their own time. The usual thing.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,685 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    lazygal wrote: »
    The churches are in a bind though. Change the rules and they admit they don't have doctrine based on divine revelation but can modernise and adapt bsed on what mere mortals deem appropriate.

    True for most but not all Christian churches and it seems to come down to emphasis. There are those in the clergy who stress compassion over dogma and declared as pro-choice and for gay marriage in recent referendums. While this represents a very small minority, it does suggest that it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that Christian tradition can change over time. More likely perhaps is that the moral gulf that separates the people of this country and the majority of the church hierarchy will continue to make the church increasingly irrelevant to most people and it will lose what remaining influence it has as a result.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 47,975 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    nthclare wrote: »
    I swing both ways myself and I enjoy it, it's great.
    protestant *and* catholic? i'm pretty sure the RC church would frown on that.


  • Registered Users Posts: 33,650 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato
    Restaurant at the End of the Universe


    smacl wrote: »
    I suspect one of the major reasons the church is dying out in this country and elsewhere is it has failed to stay aligned with the needs of a modern society.

    A part of it no doubt, but I suspect lack of faith is much more significant. A few people join other churches but not many.
    The main appeal with Christianities regressive attitude to sex and sexuality these days seems to largely lie with the homophobic and misogynistic elements of the far right.

    Ain't that the truth. It was kinda funny though how often we were told that the opposition to marriage equality and repeal had nothing to do with religion... :rolleyes:

    Thing is gay couples are as likely to adopt as much as straight couples

    This was not possible at all until very very recently.
    in fact more likely to be accepted for adoption with all this political correctness these days

    That's rather a fanciful claim, got any sources for that at all?
    The church hated gays when it suited them, and are as likely to make out their doctrine is accepting now if it suited the church's cause.These people are professional liars.

    It's called "mental reservation" :)
    The RC church certainly isn't accepting of gay people. Homosexuality is still regarded as "intrinsically disordered" and homosexuals are not permitted to marry in the church (so therefore, no sex allowed ever.) So any nicey fluffy stuff a particular cleric might come out with from time to time has to be weighed up against the official line, which hasn't changed at all.
    I despise the church as a whole, even if there are some decent individuals connected to it.

    As the RCC has no desire to fully open its records to ensure justice for abuse victims, stop protecting hierarchy who covered up, and make full financial recompense, I don't know how any decent individual could remain connected to it whether as a lay person or cleric.
    the optimist in me sort of hopes I am wrong and there is a god

    A god who you didn't worship and who is pretty pissed off at you? Ehh no thanks :pac:
    There is this myth you need religion or god to be a decent person.
    You can have decency, empathy, compassion, and love for your fellow humans

    What gets me is that people are so brainwashed they call these "christian values", which is nonsense because they far pre-date christianity, and christian churches throughout their history have very frequently behaved in exactly the opposite manner.
    There was never any agnostic crusades, no atheist inquisitions, all that type of stuff was left for the so called religious people.
    go figure

    Someone will now mention Hitler (catholic who never renounced god), Stalin (ex-seminarian) etc...

    I'd give them Mao and Pol Pot and no doubt a few others, but these guys were all pushing an ideology of their own which bore many of the hallmarks of religion, and like religion did not appreciate the existence of other ideologies competing for the unquestioning adoration of the populace.

    It took a while but I don't mind. How does my body look in this light?



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,887 ✭✭✭Odhinn


    The RC view is that sex should be for reproduction, hence no contraceptives etc. That means that sex between same sex couples can never be "right", unless the church changes its teaching on sexual matters overall.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    For the record may I point out that homosexuality and the production of offspring are not mutually exclusive.

    Homosexuals can, do, and have produced biological progeny.

    If it was all about the production of children religions would be against proven infertile people, post-menopausal women having sex. Yet, they are pretty silent on that.

    They have an issue with enjoying sex, sex they claim is only justified with the aim of having children, it is dirty, nasty and a biological imperative for men (the 'they can't control themselves' trope), and punishment for women (the 'original sin' trope).
    Having sex with a member of the same gender isn't even pretending to be about reproduction. It is purely about the enjoyment.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,685 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    You'd also have to question the role of a male only clergy and commitment to life long abstinence in the RCC. Not exactly going to promote a healthy attitude to sex and sexuality, women's reproductive rights or family planning. Nor for that matter does it seem sensible that any of us should heed the advice in these issues from a bunch of middle aged men with no first hand experience of the subject.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,242 ✭✭✭AllForIt


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    Because the connection between sex and reproduction was a much bigger dimension of sex for early societies than it is for us. And because, with high rates of child mortality, reproduction is not something that can be taken for granted. And because, with everyone's welfare, and even survival, being closely bound up with the welfare and success of the extended family and of the clan, successful reproduction was not a purely private concern.

    So the main objection to homosexuality was that it didn't give rise to little kiddies. And, since that was so obviously the whole point of sex, that was a distortion or perversion of sex. And, since having little kiddies was a really important thing for the group, it was a really bad, dangerous distortion or perversion.

    There was a second dimension to this, which was that in the early days the Abrahamic religions (and other religions in the neighbourhood) had no concept of an afterlife, or no clear concept. Whatever survived of you after death - your legacy, your continued existence, your importance to other people and to the world - resided in your descendants. So having descendants was really important; it was the point of living. So, again, because homosexuality wasn't reproductive it was seen as nihilistic; a rejection of your own value, or of the value of your own life. That was very disturbing.

    Not all religions were necessarily down on gay sex, as such. There could be a social, and even religious, place for gay sex provided it didn't stop men from forming heterosexual partnerships and having kids. (The role of gay sex in classical Greek society is often pointed to to illustrate this.) But the idea of being gay, of having a fixed or even exclusive preference for same-sex relationships, was really transgressive.

    It was only when religion came into play that any of these attitudes were ever of any concern to anyone.


  • Posts: 5,917 ✭✭✭[Deleted User]


    smacl wrote: »
    You'd also have to question the role of a male only clergy and commitment to life long abstinence in the RCC. Not exactly going to promote a healthy attitude to sex and sexuality, women's reproductive rights or family planning. Nor for that matter does it seem sensible that any of us should heed the advice in these issues from a bunch of middle aged men with no first hand experience of the subject.

    True but there are plenty of other religions where the ordained can marry and a lot of them and their followers aren't exactly much different. Only have to look at the likes of the wee frees and the likes in the north and Scotland, and that's even before moving onto the basket cases in America.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,685 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    DubInMeath wrote: »
    True but there are plenty of other religions where the ordained can marry and a lot of them and their followers aren't exactly much different. Only have to look at the likes of the wee frees and the likes in the north and Scotland, and that's even before moving onto the basket cases in America.

    Fair point, allowing people to marry certainly isn't any kind of panacea to cure bigotry and intolerance. At the same time, those precluded from all sexual activity, even if by their own choice, will be left with a skewed and incomplete understanding of the subject. There are also the doubtless frustrations and stresses caused by denying what is a fundamental biological imperative which in turn could lead to some rather damaging biases and behavior, particularly when viewed in the context of historical clerical abuse.

    I'm of the opinion that what ultra conservative married clergy and those dedicated to a life of abstinence have in common is an unhealthy amount of self denial. You'd have to wonder how many of both are also struggling with being gay.

    Christianity is a very broad church and there are without a doubt members of the clergy who are wonderful well adjusted people. Those few that I know first hand are also staunch opponents of homophobia in any shape or form and coincidentally also married. While I don't share their beliefs, that doesn't stop them from being wonderful people in my eyes.


  • Posts: 5,917 ✭✭✭[Deleted User]


    smacl wrote: »
    Fair point, allowing people to marry certainly isn't any kind of panacea to cure bigotry and intolerance. At the same time, those precluded from all sexual activity, even if by their own choice, will be left with a skewed and incomplete understanding of the subject. There are also the doubtless frustrations and stresses caused by denying what is a fundamental biological imperative which in turn could lead to some rather damaging biases and behavior, particularly when viewed in the context of historical clerical abuse.

    I'm of the opinion that what ultra conservative married clergy and those dedicated to a life of abstinence have in common is an unhealthy amount of self denial. You'd have to wonder how many of both are also struggling with being gay.

    Christianity is a very broad church and there are without a doubt members of the clergy who are wonderful well adjusted people. Those few that I know first hand are also staunch opponents of homophobia in any shape or form and coincidentally also married. While I don't share their beliefs, that doesn't stop them from being wonderful people in my eyes.

    Oh I'm not saying it's not an issue, especially since it only came about due to money and land. Makes the required sex talk for a church marriage even more ridiculous.


  • Registered Users Posts: 33,650 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato
    Restaurant at the End of the Universe


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Having sex with a member of the same gender isn't even pretending to be about reproduction. It is purely about the enjoyment.

    So "chore gay sex" is not a thing? :)

    It took a while but I don't mind. How does my body look in this light?



  • Registered Users Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    They seem to go fairly quiet on parts that they can't legally enforce anymore. All of a sudden the word of God doesn't seem so absolute and doesn't have to be enforced. The many reasons why people should be put to death. How come they don't insist on adulterous men and women being executed?


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,907 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    smacl wrote: »
    Fair point, allowing people to marry certainly isn't any kind of panacea to cure bigotry and intolerance. At the same time, those precluded from all sexual activity, even if by their own choice, will be left with a skewed and incomplete understanding of the subject. There are also the doubtless frustrations and stresses caused by denying what is a fundamental biological imperative which in turn could lead to some rather damaging biases and behavior, particularly when viewed in the context of historical clerical abuse.

    I'm of the opinion that what ultra conservative married clergy and those dedicated to a life of abstinence have in common is an unhealthy amount of self denial. You'd have to wonder how many of both are also struggling with being gay . . .
    All very arguable. But the OP talks about "religions" in general, not just Christianity. Plus, even within Christianity, as noted there are diverse attitudes and practices with regard to celibacy. Plus plus, even within Christian traditions that assign importance to celibacy, the celibacy thing is a (comparatively) late arrival; they were down on homosexuality right from the get-go, whereas a veneration for celibacy didn't arrive until a few centuries later, and it was more centuries again before celibacy became universal in the ruling church hierarchy. So while celibacy may in various ways have entrenched or intensified negative attitudes to homosexuality, it's not the root cause. And I think there is value in acknowledging the points about celibacy but looking past them, at other more fundamental factors.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    So "chore gay sex" is not a thing? :)

    You would have to ask a different gay about that. :cool:

    But speaking of gays having chore sex -
    If you think about it 2 homosexuals of opposite genders having sex purely for the purposes of procreation is exactly what the various religions should be promoting.
    Ticks all their boxes.


Advertisement