Is being against homosexuality on a religious level inherently homophobic?

[armyowalgreens]

I know that on a practical level, the answer is blatantly obvious. Yes.

But I'm arguing semantics with someone and I really need to define these two things fully.

From what I've read, the answer is still likely yes. It is an irrational discrimination against or fear of the LGBTQ community. The irrational part is the religious belief.

What say you?

[Skittles]

1. YES

[roguevalley]

127. consider this. the Bible says that God created man/women in his

own image. Therefore, there is something in the mind of God that homosexuality is normal, good and acceptable. The fact that people say that its a 'choice' not a fact of God's will shows that people are trying to get around the fact that God wills homosexuality as a part of our natural existence. If they didn't, they would be judging God and facing consequences for it. God would be flawed and in their minds that cannot be. Thus, they cherry pick the Bible and make shit up.

So saith RV.

[madamesilverspurs]

205. As a friend posits,

"if God created men AND women in HIS image, then we're all the same. What's the problem again?"

[TxRider]

131. No it's not

But IMO it's just as stupid and wrong.

[tekisui]

161. It is homophobia with cover. Nothing more.

[Raster]

199. Homophobic bigotry.

[BlooInBloo]

2. Yes.

This is the inaugural episode to Simple Answers To Asinine Questions.

[armyowalgreens]

3. I don't think it's inaugural.

[VMI Dem]

ok...but its the season premiere.

[patrice]

rofl

:hi: Bloo!

[mitchtv]

4. yup

[patrice]

5. I am against strongly against several things without being phobic.

Depends on the thing.

Can't think of any thing that I am PHOBIC of.

[armyowalgreens]

8. I think that it qualifies as homophobia because of the religious belief...

Which is irrational by definition.

[Archbishop]

6. Yes

Hiding your bigotry behind your religion still makes you a bigot.

[armyowalgreens]

9. Welcome to DU!

:hi: :thumbsup:

[HelenWheels]

77. I like that and welcome to DU

Using religion to justify hatred is disgusting.

[bigwillq]

112. Hello.

Welcome to DU! :hi:

[Hansel]

134. Good answer and welcome.

[patrice]

173. 1+

Bigotry is pretty Sick.

[ZombieHorde]

180. Welcome to DU.

[Divine Discontent]

7. YES. as a practicing Christian, the argument that you're against Gay people is ridiculous because

these same people say that a sin is a sin is a sin, and yet, they treat GLBTQ folks as being outright disgustingly evil and most (not all) wouldn't allow them in their churches as a couple. Therefore, their claim that a sin is a sin, in regards to being Gay is false - because they don't treat all forms of what they refer to sin the same manner, and they then show a phobia against Gays that is not grounded in fact. They are being, practically, judgmental.

[patrice]

13. They measure sin and that's not their right. Small sins are a sign of weakness & fear.

Small uncorrected sins are pathetic and disgusting too.

Judgement is Blasphemy.

[Divine Discontent]

29. spot on, my friend.

:hug:

[patrice]

171. Thanks!

:hug:

I needed that.

[Hugabear]

15. Exactly

They say that all sins are bad, that no sin is worse than another sin - and yet they'll treat the "sin" of being gay as if it's the worst sin in the world. They don't seem to make such a big deal about gluttony or pride, do they?

[Divine Discontent]

25. I agree, nope, they don't! make a big deal about their pile of hypocrisy.

from their mega(maniacal)churches, or as my astute brother calls them, "fun churches", to their fancy mansions, Mercedes for him & her (and one for the male prostitute he's with on the side every 2 weeks, etc) says it all!

You go to some churches, you'd think Jesus preached a hundred sermons on the evil of being Gay! I went to a Baptist church to be nice to my friend who asked and knew I was a Christian and was trying to get me to 'pray away the Gay' - within 10 minutes the minister was crowing away about "homosexual hollywood" and "will & grace polluting the airwaves", confusing the children... etc...

I told him never again & said, "with a Gay brother of you own, you shouldn't attend such a hateful church that attacks something that he, you, and I do not control - and that is who we fall for!"

[subcomhd]

71. actually many of them had 'power of pride' bumper stickers after 9/11

nt

[DeadEyeDyck]

125. I think murder outweighs shoplifting

but what do I know?

[present and past]

144. Menage A Trois

You're referring to churchgoers won't let gay couples attend church services.

Some churches welcome gay couples. But only couples of two.

If you're truly tolerant, why not allow a menage-a-trois to attend your High Mass or church social?

Once you tolerate two people of the same sex who make it clear they are sexually involved, then you're giving an inch, and others can take a yard or a mile. Three people who have sex with each other should be allowed to recite the 23rd Psalm in public. If that's crazy, then how can two sterile people having sex not be crazy?

[patrice]

176. Exactly! and . . .

Their own "small" sins are deemed Less and yet they do not reform them to be blessings rather than sins, small though they are and easily amended by spiritual discipline and a little work, lacking the Strength for which they are somehow (according to them) always guaranteed forgiveness, though it seems rather Weak to not reform one's own "small" easily changeable bad habits, aka sins, and dictate that others change Major aspects of Who they know themselves to be, on Their say so.

[Hugabear]

10. Is being against minorities on a religious level inherently racist?

Because there are some who will actually claim that their interpretation of the Bible or some other religious text causes them to believe that their race is superior.

I have actually heard some fundie-type Christians use a Biblical phrase about "not being unequally yoked" to mean that God does not allow interracial marriage - because the races are not equal.

So to answer your question, I would have to say absolutely yes it does.

[armyowalgreens]

11. hmmm good point. I never thought about it from that angle.

[David Zephyr]

45. LOL. Bingo.

Word.

[a la izquierda]

65. That was the entire basis for slavery...

in the western hemisphere. Since people of African descent were not Christians, and therefore "heathen", they were eligible for enslavement.

[redqueen]

107. Excellent analogy.

Yes, it is inherently homophobic.

[Malikshah]

12. It's tricky, and actually worse to use religion

On the one hand, one may try to use religion to excuse their bigotry--something that is inherently anti-religious.

On the other hand, those that use religion to excuse their bigotry often selectively cite scripture--again, and inherently anti-religious stance.

But to your question-- are their inherently homophobic due to their use of religion? No necessarily so. Just anti-religious and more stupid than a sack of wet hamsters.

The key thing is that they are inherently homophobic. The use of religion is a crutch for their poorly founded and weak faith.

[Douglas Carpenter]

22. If a person singled out homosexuality - I would have to say yes

If a person, because of their religious beliefs, held that all sex outside of traditional marriage was a sin - it might be an archaic belief. It might be an incorrect belief. But if they were consistent, I would have to say that it is a religious belief. The person who holds such beliefs might very well also be bigoted. They probably usually are.

In some cases, I think of someone like the late Tammy Faye Baker, who probably believed religiously that all sex outside of traditional marriage was a sin. Yet, she apparently genuinely liked gay people and didn't give the impression of holding any actual bigotry against gay people. Well it is hard to say.

[rucky]

14. Make sure this person understands...

that nobody's proposing that their church should be forced to perform - or even recognize - same-sex marriages.

If it's truly that person's religion, they should be okay with weddings outside their church. If they're not, then there's your answer.

[Withywindle]

16. Yes.

People have all sorts of excuses for various kinds of bigotry, and it doesn't fucking matter what the excuse is, it's still bigotry, and people who have it either need to get themselves educated or STFU. Just because someone blames their ignorance on religion doesn't make it more worthy of respect or coddling than any other form of -ism.

[Iggo]

17. Yes.

Irrational.:thumbsup:

[Bjorn Against]

18. Yes, people choose their religious beliefs

I am really sick of this idea that religious beliefs are somehow above other forms of belief, bigotry is bigotry and religion does not justify it. No one is born a religious person, we all have a choice over what we choose to believe and what we choose not to believe. There are many honorable religious people who I respect greatly because their faith guides them in a positive direction. There are other people who use religion to justify hate however, and these people can take their religion and shove it up their ass because I don't think their "deeply held beliefs" are worthy of respect in any way. I will respect the religious beliefs of anyone who respects humanity, but the moment they stop respecting humanity is the moment they lose my respect.

[AndyA]

24. +1

It does indeed come down to choice. People don't choose to be male/female, black/white, gay/straight, etc., but they do choose what to believe. And whose to say one person's beliefs are more valid or correct than another's? :shrug:

[Withywindle]

28. Well said, that's it exactly!

Religious ideas get evaluated on their merits and effects just like every other kind of idea. There is no get-out-of-criticism-free card just because someone thinks "God said so" about a particular notion.

If your religion preaches compassion, understanding, kindness, etcetera, great! If your religion teaches hate, then it's gotta get criticized (and get gone!)

By their fruits ye shall know them, right?

[pipi_k]

90. I agree with you that religion is a choice, but...

I think with a lot of people that choice evolves into something close to addiction...and maybe with some people it's like being a hostage.

For example, this couple I've known for almost 20 years. Recovering alcoholics. In their case, as in so many other similar ones, they've merely traded their addiction to alcohol for an addiction to religion. Addiction is a disease. Ask an alcoholic. Ask anyone who's addicted to drugs or cigarettes. Once something "normal" passes into the realm of being an addiction, it's no longer a choice that one can give up without a LOT of psychological (and physical) pain.

Also, and using this same couple, I believe that they have become hostages, in a way, to religion. At this point, it's all they know, and their only comfort in a world that is so frightening to them that, if set free, they would not be able to handle and would go back to being drunks once again.

They are truly good people...just a bit misguided and rather naive about a lot of things. In some respects I feel very sorry for them, because I don't see where they have a choice to end their dependence on religion.

And their religion, of course, preaches that homosexuality is wrong. If they don't follow what they believe their "God" wants them to believe, then they have nothing and they are nothing. It's just very sad that a lot of religion involves hating others for what/whom they are... :(

[La Lioness Priyanka]

195. well said.

[seabeyond]

19. "irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals

bible says it is a sin. that is why religious claim to have issue. is that an irrational fear, discrimination to, certainly an aversion to because fo religion...

so regardless of arguing if religion cause descrimination or fear.... it does aversion

[ruggerson]

20. Of course

[BillDU]

21. Say I..

not really.
some religions reveal that if you have sex with you wife for any other reason than sacred procreation then you are in sin.
The modern day Christians just kinda leave that part out.
Homosexuals provide them with a distraction.
if anybody questions.

[Sebastian Doyle]

23. Are they keeping ALL the laws of Leviticus?

A lot of things are called "abominations" in Leviticus. Eating pork or shellfish. Shaving your beard. Wearing clothing made of more than one kind of material. Forgetting to wash your hands after you take a piss. "Knowing" your wife when she's menstruating, etc.

Yeah, the dietary laws are still part of the Jewish and Muslim traditions, and the Muslims don't shave either, but the rest of these rules pretty much went out the window.

So if they condemn someone for being gay, while committing any of the other abominations themselves, that means they will be judged guilty by the Lord and will be taking the Highway to Hell also.

[seabeyond]

26. ah... you dont know how many times i use this with people. leviticus...nt.

[Starry Messenger]

27. Yes.

No question.

[saltpoint]

30. The practical and the personal would appear to be joined at the

line just below one's briefs or boxers.

Anything with 'phobic' in the spelling means that someone is afraid of someone else or something else. Heights, snakes, technology, lesbians and gays.

An irrational fear borders a thought disorder, or is somewhere in that neighborhood. There are folks who think the radio or television is speaking to them. They are irrationally frightened by say, their local weather person on the local tv news at 6:00.

A fear of rattlesnakes is a more rational response, but it should not keep anyone from hiking. Snakes have neurotoxin, yes, but snakes are also beautiful and interesting and not least, they were here before we were.

There were a lot of people who scoffed at the notion of microwave ovens a few decades ago but behold, they're just about everyplace now, and just about everyone in the country has one or uses one. Piece of cake.

A fear of how someone else expresses their sexuality is far worse than a fear of heights because the fear seems tripswitched by religious paranoia that the ghosts of Leviticus and the letters of Paul will rise from the dusty shelves and condemn anyone who sanctions same-sex love.

Straight folks who are secure in their own sexuality aren't usually the ones squawking and screaming over LGBTQ issues. But the squawking from the religious right is deafening and non-stop.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

31. Yes, because not all religious groups are homophobic

The Unitarian-Universalists and UCCs have been fully welcoming since forever. The Episcopalians and ELCA Lutherans recently officially approved the ordination of GLBT clergy.

In any case, in line with the bumpersticker "If you're against abortion, don't have one," the only answer to a religiously-based homophobe is, "If you are against same-sex relationships, don't have one." Such a person has no right to impose his or her standards on another person who is not harming society.

If the religious homophobe comes back with "Should we just allow pedophiles to indulge themselves?" you can say that pedophiles cause severe physical and psychological harm to their victims and, in the interests of society, must be kept away from children.

If the religious homophobe comes back with, "What about the Biblical prohibitions against murder and theft?" you can say that every society in the world of whatever religion or no religion condemns murder and theft. Every decent human being, religious or not, is revolted by the idea of arbitrarily taking someone else's life. If you get mugged, religious people and atheists will both think you've been done wrong.

You can also remind them that Jesus never said a word about homosexuality or abortion, both of which existed in his time. If they were THE most important issues for "Christians," as the mega church people seem to believe, you'd think he would have at least referred to them. What he DID talk about repeatedly was how the rich oppressed the poor.

[sweetloukillbot]

57. Quick correction -re: ELCA

The distinction isn't ordaining GLBT clergy. It is allowing GLBT clergy in committed relationships to serve. I can't speak for ELCA congregations in redder areas, but the ones I've been to have always welcomed GLBT members - the church I attend now has several gay members in prominent lay leadership positions.

Likewise, for years (since the synod's inception possibly?)the ELCA has allowed GLBT clergy to be ordained and lead congregations, as long as they remained celibate - the phrase used was no "practicing" homosexuals - just as straight clergy who aren't married are expected to remain celibate. Clergy can also be stripped of their ordination for extramarital affairs - it happened to the bishop in my synod a couple years ago.

I know some in the ELCA view the new ruling from this standpoint - gay relationships are by definition extramarital in most states, so they should not serve in leadership positions. I, however, think this is a cop-out to cover for homophobia.

[burning rain]

32. Yes.

But then, I'm an atheist, and refuse to privilege religion-based convictions over secular convictions in terms of respect. But, to whatever extent you accord extra respect to religious beliefs, you must grant extra deference to religion-based homophobia. Otherwise, you're just being disingenuous: My nice-guy Christianianity, whose claims cannot be proved is right, and his nasty Christianity, whose claims cannot be proved, is wrong.

[Withywindle]

207. I think I disagree, and this is why.

If someone says, "I believe Christianity tells me to feed the hungry and take care of the sick," then great. Whether I believe in Christ or not myself, I agree with that sentiment, and the important thing is that people hold that belief and act on it, because it helps people - it doesn't matter how they get there.

If someone says, "I believe Christianity tell me to look down on GLBT people and judge GLBT relationships as sinful and inferior," well, I strongly disagree with that sentiment, and I want to see it gone from the world, because it hurts people. It doesn't matter how they get there.

Personal motivations for ideas don't matter to me. What matters is the real-world effects those ideas have on other people. Religion is a source of both helpful and hurtful ideas. So is literature. So is politics. So is popular science. So is every other human endeavor that exists. That's why it's important to evaluate every notion on its effects.

[Lex]

33. The Bible has been used to justify racism.

And, it's still racism.

[seabeyond]

34. and certainly sexism. nt

[Lex]

39. yes

that too

coating it in a crunchy outer layer of religion doesn't give it a free pass to be something else

[seabeyond]

41. nope. nt

[seabeyond]

35. dupe. nt

[leeroysphitz]

36. Yes. END OF THREAD.

[flvegan]

37. Last I checked, the Bible didn't think much of women either.

So by that thought, being against women's equality on a religious level isn't inherently sexist/misogynistic.

[msongs]

38. fear based religions seek to impose their beliefs on everyone incl. non believers nt

[pipoman]

40. Being "against homosexuality" is like being against

eating meat or against elm trees..be against it all you like but it will not go away...thus being against it is a waste of time and stupid whether or not it is homophobic.

[ruggerson]

43. Best answer in the thread

+1

[Gwendolyn]

42. I don't think it's irrational at all. It's a numbers game.

The major message put forth by all the Abrahamic religions is basically "go forth and multiply." Any union or acts that impede this progress (homosexuality, sex for fun/with birth control) hurts the group. It's really as simple as that. At the end, the religion with the most members, wins. They doll it up with a bunch of thunder and lightening, God's finger opening the sky, angels in opaque gown descending to the strains of O Fortuna, dog and pony show, but that's what it's about.
I believe homosexuality was tolerated at some point during OT time, but once religion got to be big business, that was out.

[VMI Dem]

44. I am fascinated by the relatively strong response to such sweeping questions.

Compared to the very open and tolerated homophobia I see in many posts and threads here.

[ruggerson]

51. the names of those posters

are conspicuously absent from threads like this.

[David Zephyr]

196. Always conspicuously absent.

Without fail, they're never around. Those always so wordy on any other issue are without words on GLBT issues.

[G_j]

46. Yes, homophobia is taught. nt

[Zoeisright]

47. Yes.

If you're going to base your belief system and discriminate based on an old book, you're pretty pathetic.

[donheld]

48. Yes it is

[Sapphocrat]

49. What say I.

Only homophobic pieces of shit are "against" homosexuality.

May as well be against... rain.

"It always seemed to me a bit pointless to disapprove of homosexuality. It's like disapproving of rain." -- Francis Maude

[SidDithers]

50. Yup. Bigotry cloaked in religion is still bigotry...nt

Sid

[BlooInBloo]

59. "Institutionalized" might be a better descriptor here, but yah.

[NMMNG]

52. People need to stop using their religion

as an excuse for their homophobic bigotry. If they want to be a-holes they should stand up for themselves and stop pinning the blame on Jesus.

[cynatnite]

53. "hate the sin...not the sinner"...

probably one of the most homophobic remarks that exists today, IMO. It's a bullshit excuse to continue to be hateful.

[Bluenorthwest]

68. Oh and that quote is not even Biblical

many DU 'Christians' have insisted to me that it is, when it is not. They don't know their own Scriptures, and make new ones up when they need to!

[daleo]

54. An invisible man says to hate and fear homosexuals

So the invisible man's followers choose to hate and fear homosexuals.

It doesn't seem like a sufficient reason to hate and fear actual existing people to me. When it comes to choosing between actual people and invisible people, I think actual people ought to get the nod. But then I'm so deluded, I don't actually see or hear invisible people.

[madeline_con]

55. At least that's what those inspired to write about the invisible man say. n/t

[JenniferJuniper]

60. And they don't disapprove of everything the Cloud Man tells them is bad

I know for a fact that many of these Leviticus-spouting Cloud Man followers frequently wear cotton/polyester blends. (I'm sure because, let's face it, cotton just doesn't hold up as well on it's own.)

[iris27]

56. YES...I've never met anyone who was personally hunky-dory with gay people

and was only against homosexuality because of their religion. Even in my closeted-to-myself days growing up Lutheran, everyone I met pretty much had their beliefs about gays and picked their Bible verses to match.

Homophobes pointed to Leviticus and Romans 1.

Non-gay-hating Christians pointed to Romans 2 which follows Romans 1's condemnation of homosexual behavior with "none of you are any better than this in God's eyes and cannot judge", and Galatians 3:28 which says all believers are one in Christ ("neither male nor female, neither slave nor free...")

[Ozymanithrax]

58. Yes...

You are, of course, free to hate whomever you want for relgious purposes. But that doesn't change what it is.

[Warren DeMontague]

61. Is being against Jews "on a religious level" inherently Anti-Semitic?

I'm betting, Yes.

[WVRICK13]

62. Not Too Long Ago

they used the bible to argue against interracial marriage and to uphold white supremacy (they still do in some places) while saying they worship a mid-eastern Jewish carpenter. Hmmmm.

[Sebastian Doyle]

136. JESUS H. CHRIST WERENT NO JEW, HE WAS A WHITE CHRISTIAN AMERICAN !!!!11!1!!!!1

HE WAS BORN IN BETHLEHEM, AND THAT'S IN PENCILVANIA!!1!!!1!

YEAH ITS KINDA TROUBLING THAT ALLMIGHTY GOD WOULD MAKE HIS ONLY SON A YANKEE, BUT I CAN LIVE WITH THAT LONG AS HE AINT JEWISH OR COLORED !11!!!!11!1 :crazy:

[PVnRT]

63. Is being racist because of religious beliefs still racist? Yes.

Same goes for all bigotry.

[Toasterlad]

64. People Who Use Religion to Justify Bigotry Are Ignorant, Evil Assholes

[rug]

66. Is being against abortion on a religious level inherently misogynist?

[Stevenmarc]

67. Yes because inherently it's the tail wagging the dog not true faith

they use the Bible selectively as spiritual kevlar to protect themselves from their own insecurities.

[BoneDaddy]

69. I will argue no

but I think it is a rare individual who fits this bill. I think the vast majority of people who are against homosexuality are inherently homophobic.

But I have come across a good number of people who, I believe, have no legitimate bias against them but just believe it is not right based upon their religion. I have friends from high school and college who are like this. They do not make disparaging remarks about gays and lesbians. They work just fine with their gay and lesbian co-workers, go out after work and are compassionate to them, but they are also Catholic and adhere to the church's teachings that homosexuality is a matter of ontology.

[Bluenorthwest]

74. No one thinks their own friends can be bigots

But you know what? They are. The fact that they are bigots by command from others makes it worse, not better. One can smile, and smile, and be a villain, and not just in Denmark either.

[BoneDaddy]

76. I believe everyone is a bigot

just depends on which tribe you are from. I see bigotry on this message board everyday.

[Bluenorthwest]

79. Well you'd have to.

Here is the question I have for you. If your pals' prejudices are so benign, so passive, how is it that you even know about those opinions they hold? Clearly the subject came up, and they shared their bigotry, over drinks perhaps. Was it about an individual? Or about the political objectives of their church? The question is, in what context did a bunch of straight people put GLBT people on the table for discussion? Why? Who brought it up?
Those that make sure you know they are bigots, are bigots pure and simple. Religion has been the excuse for slave markets, the selling of indulgences, for torture and for mass murder. None of those actions were mitigated by the use of a religious lexicon either.
So y'all sit around and discuss 'those people' in such detail that you know their minds on the subject. But why is that the case? Why?

[BoneDaddy]

84. I have brought it up and

they have brought it up trhoughout the years. The conversations never started off about gays and lesbians but were eventually worked into the conversations. Discussions about our belief systems, why I am no longer Catholic and those reasons typically sparked dialogue.

I know it is convenient to paint everyone who doesn't see things exactly like you as evil or bad, but it isn't that simple. Sure there are people who confirm your beliefs, but there are also those who are loving good people who simply believe that homosexuality is not God's will. I do not believe that and it has caused tension between us, but over the years, they have softened on alot of issues and I find that when I do not over react, act with some sense of moral superiority or demonize them, they tend to come around alot more than if I bullied them.

[ruggerson]

89. are there "loving, good" people who are racist?

[BoneDaddy]

93. Yes there are

it is a matter of perspective. You act as if it has to be one absolute or another. I am not justifying racism but to say that bigots and racists cannot love is ludicrous. They can be very loving to those within their tribe and not to those outside of their tribe. The people on this board who claim to be liberal, act as if they have achieved some moral superiority are just as guilty of bias and bigotry as those they question. Anyone who thinks themselves immune to bigotry has never really taken a good look at themselves.

[Bluenorthwest]

97. You need to pick one position and stay with it

You are claiming that those who are intolerant due to religion are not bigots, even when they organize and spend millions to oppress the minorities they do not like, and also that any criticism of the religionists is in itself bigotry. You can not have it both ways. A group organizes openly against my people, and that is not bigotry, but if I call them out for organizing against my people, that IS bigotry? It seems to me that if active anti-minority activities are being given a pass, that simple criticism should as well, and in fact, I should be able to organize and raise millions against them and also not be considered a bigot. One or the other, it can not be both.
The religionists organize against others, openly, loudly and with much money spent. They buy TV time to speak against my family. All I say is that they are wrong to do so. None of us are trying to take rights from them, nor are we putting out propaganda against them, as they do to us. They deliver slanders, and you say that is not bigotry. But if we say it is slander, well that IS bigotry. How does that work again?

[BoneDaddy]

99. YOu pick the most aggregious offenders

to make your point and I think it exists on a continuum. Sure on your extreme end those people are bigots, yet on the other end of the spectrum I do not think that is the case. You choose the most horrific people to stand up as straw men to my argument.

I never argued that those people you describe are not bigots. I said, if you even bothered to read my first post, that there is a small minority of people who I have met and know who although they do not support homosexuality are not bigots. So yes, I do believe that the phenomenon can exist. YOu would like this to be simple and I don't think that it is.

[Bluenorthwest]

95. Good loving people do not presume to know the mind of God

and they do not hold prejudices against groups of their neighbors. You do understand that their organization actively demonizes my community, with huge senses of moral superiority, with millions of dollars, with hours spent in pursuit of political oppression of my family? What exactly is an over reaction to a person who tries to prevent you from having equal treatment under the law, because they claim God wants that? Is there some polite reaction to bigotry and oppression, to organized hate?
Do you think racists are also good, loving people, just trying to please God?

[BoneDaddy]

96. Sure they do, they have been doing it from the very beginning

and will continue to do it. And let's stop with the straw man arguments. I am not defending their positions. I find them to be very misguided, ignorant and fearful of change.

What I argued against initially was that can someone hold a position where they do not believe that homosexuality is ok yet still not be homophobic and I still hold to my answer. I said that they are in the minority and rare.

And certainly there are plenty of people who fit your above description and yet I would still say that they can be loving to those of their tribe. Again horribly misguided, incongruent with their own christian messages but I believe can still be capable of love.

Most of these folks suffer from a HUGE case of cognitive dissonance. Like so many here do with their own tribal affiliations.

[Bluenorthwest]

98. Speaking of straw men

I never said they did not love their own straight kids and such. Never said any such thing. In fact, such a point is rather off subject, as the teachings are all about loving your neighbor, and even your enemy. That is what their faith teaches. And that is where they fail their faith. Loving your own is simple stuff, Jesus taught about loving the other, the prisoner, those of other races or faiths, the poor. That is what the faith is about. And that is what they do not practice.
And you must understand that these people were also taught never, ever to presume to know the mind of God. Never to sit in judgement. By casting the first stones, they are making a claim of personal perfection. And that is a huge no no, in that very faith. Sure people do it, but not good people who are practicing that faith, sorry. By the standards of their own faith, they are not good people when they judge others in the name of God, whom they are not.
They don't practice their faith as it applies to themselves, they use it instead as a bludgeon to oppress others. And others do not respond in kind, but rather from a much higher place. They should be glad that we are not toward them as they are toward us, if you ask me.

[BoneDaddy]

100. I have pointed out what you have just rambled on about

multiple times. Stop arguing with me from a different position. IF you spent an iota of time actually reading my posts, I have made that same argument you just did above. It makes them hypocritical, like all human beings, republican, democrat, christian and non christian and so on. You and me too.

[MajorChode]

124. Blindly following bigotry is still bigotry

That's like saying you're a member of the KKK and believe in what the KKK teaches, but don't believe you're a racist just because you don't tell racist jokes and have a black friend.

[ShortnFiery]

70. Yes!

[Bluenorthwest]

72. Bigotry is not mitigated by dogma

Even the best of them are using their 'faith' as a mask to hide their own prejudices. That is usually why they have 'faith' in the first place. It just means they hate people and want to claim the Divine as they express their personal intolerance.

[treestar]

73. Yes, because there are other rules in the Bible they are willing

to let slide - the ones about marrying your brother's widow, or menstrating women, all obsolete. Yet they refuse to let the proscription against gay people slide.

Like the Onan thing, in those days, peoples needed to increase their populations; the rules were only about that.

[subcomhd]

75. You can either argue that religion is per se irrational

The Buddhist have a weird twist on it.

This belief is not based on the partners being of the same gender. In his book "Beyond Dogma," he has written that "homosexuality, whether it is between men or between women, is not improper in itself. What is improper is the use of organs already defined as inappropriate for sexual contact." Tibetan Buddhism prohibits oral, manual and anal sex for everyone - both homosexuals and heterosexuals. However, these restrictions refer only to members of the Buddhist faith. 4 From "society's viewpoint," same-sex relations can be "of mutual benefit, enjoyable and harmless." He supports human rights "regardless of sexual orientation."

At a subsequent meeting with gay and lesbian representatives, he expressed the "willingness to consider the possibility that some of the teachings may be specific to a particular cultural and historic context." Dawa Tsering, spokesperson for the Office of Tibet commented: "His Holiness opposes violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation. He urges respect, tolerance, compassion and the full recognition of human rights for all." 5

An article in Newsweek stated that "Although he has affirmed the dignity and rights of gays and lesbians, he has condemned homosexual acts as contrary to Buddhist ethics."

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_budd.htm

[dugaresa]

78. Yes, most definitely, file it under using religion as the excuse for your discomfort

that is what a lot of folks do.

[Orsino]

80. Yes.

It's also being a dumbass, and a mean one.

[dionysus]

81. ignorant at the very least.

[cbdo2007]

82. I've seen others that are against it from a scientific perspective as well.

With the argument that, man + woman = baby; and man parts and woman parts fit together correctly.

[VMI Dem]

91. They are homophobes as well.

And idiots to boot.

[BlooInBloo]

108. I've seen others that are against it from a "scientific" perspective as well.

Typo corrected. You're welcome.

[redqueen]

109. That is rather far from a 'scientific perspective'. IMO at least. (nt)

[endarkenment]

120. where exactly is the scientific perspective in that?

Please elaborate. I'm fascinated.

[Starry Messenger]

150. Phrenology was considered a science once.

It was used to justify racism and class superiority. Fortunately we've ditched that bit of garbage as well.

[tekisui]

162. Homophobic and stupidly not based in science.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

191. LOL. that is not scientific. that is making huge assumptions about what is correctly

and that man +women = baby, is an absolute necessity for everyone. man+women=baby= overpopulation too

[Hepburn]

83. Yes....

...simply because it is wrong to judge others.

[el_bryanto]

85. NO! or maybe yes.

It depends on what claim you think that Homosexuals have on their neighbors for acceptance.

I think anybody who believes Homosexuals should be discriminated against or who believes Homosexuality should be criminalized is clearly a homophobe in the worst sense of the word, whether their belief stems from religion or not.

On the other hand, believing that Homosexuality is a sin, is "being against Homosexuality." Can a person believe Homosexuality is a sin without it being a homophobic in the worst sense?

Well, many religions teach that sex outside of marriage is a sin. Practitioners of those religions believe that those who are having sexual relations with anybody, same sex or opposite sex, they aren't married to are fornicators, a very serious sin. Does this belief hurt those who chose to have sex outside of marriage? Possibly. Is that a sufficient reason to condemn religion? I guess that depends. Other than a few fruitcakes, there isn't a movement to criminalize sex outside of marriage.

Bryant

[HamdenRice]

86. If a person only believes that s/he may not engage in homosexual ACTS, no

Obviously that's rare. Most religious people opposed to homosexuality are opposed to gay and lesbian people and want to impose their beliefs on them and make their lives miserable -- or worse, commit violence against them.

That said, I've known some religious people who take the narrow position that it is against their religion for them personally to engage in homosexual behavior. In that way, I don't think it's any worse than a Jew or Muslim saying s/he can't eat pork -- without condemning us pork chop loving gourmands of being "unclean" or making any other value judgment about what others do.

Similarly, there are many very religious people who are not allowed to engage in various heterosexual acts that most other people enjoy. As long as they keep their restrictions to themselves, no they are not inherently homophobic.

I'd add one more aspect of even my narrow definition of a non-homophobic religious person, and that is, that the religion itself can be very damaging to gay and lesbian people in that religion, so I'd have to further limit it to heterosexual people who have that narrow belief.

[marshall]

87. If they treat all sex outside of "traditional" marriage the same, it is less obnoxious

I find it hypocritical when "Christians" decry sex between same gender partners, but they wink and nod at sex between unmarried opposite gender partners--or even masturbation. Under their dogma it's all the same.

[FreeState]

116. Not to me - its not equal to say no sex before marriage but deny GLBT the right of marriage n/t

[marshall]

128. I'm just talking about them being consistent within their own frame of reference

Looking at it like you're Margaret Mead, doing an anthropological study--they have their own code. But they pick and choose how much of the code they are going to follow, what part they are going to become rabidly vigilant about, what they will turn a blind eye to, etc. For instance I used to run a B&B in a historic district of a large town, and the other B&B owners and managers met in a monthly meeting. There was open hostility toward same sex couples sharing a room with one bed, and much talk of Christian values, Baptist (or pick any other) teaching, etc. But none of that hostility was directed toward opposite sex couples in the same situation. I would have less disrespect for somebody who flat out opposed all nonmarried couples than those who rolled an evil eye at the same sex couples while falling all over themselves to turn down the bed linens for unmarried opposite sex couples.

[FreeState]

148. I dont see that as consistent

heres why I dont see it that way. I was raised LDS (Mormon). The Church's official stance is no one regardless of orientation is to have premarital sex. They don't believe orientation is something one chooses but it can be changed. So everyones equal until marriage right? Nope.

Single Mormons have dances, dates, full inclusion in LDS Society. GLBT Mormons get none of that.

Even if you hold the standard to all non-married persons you are still sending a message of discrimination IMO.

[marshall]

169. The LDS church has softened its approach but still has a long way to go

Church leaders as well as others are now instructed not to ask single adults why they aren't married. It may seem like a tiny step, but it's light years ahead of twenty or even ten years ago.

[Torn_Scorned_Ignored]

88. interesting article from Baker's Evangelical Dictionary

It is significant that the word "homosexuality" did not enter the English vocabulary until the early twentieth century. The word, and with it the concept of lifelong primary sexual orientation toward members of one's own gender, was unacknowledged and probably unknown in the biblical world. Some today will therefore argue that what the Bible appears to condemn can be distinguished from homosexuality. They maintain that the homosexual orientation, to the extent that it develops in early childhood or even before birth, is not consciously chosen and is therefore not sinful. As long as this form of sexuality is expressed monogamously, it is argued, homosexual relations merely constitute an expansion of the biblical view of marriage. In order to assess the legitimacy of this approach, it is important to begin with an understanding of the view of same-gender sex in the ancient world.

http://www.biblestudytools.com/Dictionaries/BakersEvangelicalDictionary/bed.cgi?number=T348

[closeupready]

92. Yes absolutely. I'm not even sure why there is any dispute over this.

??

[iceman66]

94. I am going to play devil's advocate and argue "no"

This is why seperation of church and state is such an important concept.

I think that you can be personally opposed to homosexuality and at the same time still respect the rights of others to live their lives as they see fit.

In the same way, a lot of people are opposed to abortion on religious grounds but are still politically pro-choice.

[Toasterlad]

114. The Weight of the Ignorance In This Post Threatens to Send My Computer Plummeting Through My Desk.

Being opposed to abortion can in no way be compared to being opposed to homosexuality. Abortion is a choice one makes. Homosexuality is a characteristic with which one is born.

Being "against homosexuality" is exactly as ignorant and ludicrous as being against red hair or left-handness, no matter what a 2,000 year old children's book has to say.

[iceman66]

132. So anyone who doesn't agree with you is ignorant?

People should be able to believe what they want, as long as they respect the right of others to do the same. The problem with the right wing is that they don't do that.

[Toasterlad]

137. Anyone Who Doesn't Agree With REALITY Is Ignorant.

Just because your religion tells you that homosexuality is a sinful abomination doesn't mean it's true, any more than it's true that the sun revolves around the Earth. People can believe whatever they want, but if they believe PATENTLY FALSE things, then they are flatly stupid. And generally hateful, as well.

[Silent3]

147. I'd say freedom of religion is pretty meaningless without...

...the freedom to believe irrational things. That's practically the essence of religion.

There's certainly no ignorance in the post you responded to. I agree that being "against homosexuality" is ludicrous, as I'm sure the person you just responded to believes, but being able to tolerate other people thinking ludicrous things is the only way all stripes of religion and the non-religious can get along, if they all tolerate (and "tolerate" does not have to mean "never comment or disagree aloud") each other's choices and keep interference with what others do and believe down to a secularly agreeable minimum.

Whether you call a person who privately is opposed to homosexuality but still respects other people's choices, and doesn't try to interfere in their lives, a "homophobe" or not is debatable. I can imagine a person who doesn't viscerally feel any objection to homosexuality at all, but still thinks to himself/herself, "Who am I to argue with God?" That person, in my opinion, has problems with a silly belief and acquiescing to invisible authority figures, but isn't a homophobe.

[Toasterlad]

152. Tolerating Ignorant People Doesn't Make Them Any Less Ignorant

Anyone who can't see that being "against homophobia" is exactly as ignorant and willfully stupid as being "against blue eyes" is to be pitied, patronized, and, yes, tolerated...until they use their ignorant and willfully stupid beliefs to try and infringe upon MY rights. Then they are to be hated, rebuked, and ridiculed until this country is free of their vile idiocy.

[Silent3]

159. You accused someone else in this thread of ignorance, however...

...in response to a thoughtful post. I think you throw the word around too easily as a generic insult, and I think you're way too certain about what constitutes "willful" stupidity -- I think I perceive that sometimes too, but none of us are mind readers, and you shouldn't act so adamantly, angrily certain that you know what's going on inside other people's heads, especially when you make it sound like you're not merely stating a generalization, but an iron-clad assessment of ignorance and willful stupidity with NO POSSIBLE (pound fist on table!!!) EXCEPTIONS!!! And anyone who doesn't agree with you is IGNORANT TOO!!! GRRR!!!

[Toasterlad]

168. Please Explain How Someone Who Is Informed That Homosexuality Is an Inborn Characteristic

and yet continues to be "against it" is not willfully stupid.

As for the ignorant, I am using the word exactly as it is meant. People who do not know that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality are ignorant. They don't know any better. The stupidity only comes into play when they are taught otherwise, and refuse to learn.

But make no mistake: ANYONE who doesn't "agree" with homosexuality is either ignorant and/or stupid. NO EXCEPTIONS.

[iceman66]

160. This is my point exactly.

Just about every religion thinks every other religion is wrong, and that is why our founding fathers wisely drafted the First Amendment.

Tolerance is the key thing.

Personally, I'm all for gay marriage from a civil/legal standpoint, but at the same time don't feel churches should be forced to perform gay marriages if it conflicts with their beliefs.

[endarkenment]

164. "churches forced into gay marriage" not the issue

and indeed bigots have to be tolerated. That does not render them not-bigots. Religions are free to preach bigotry, and practice it. As per the OPs question, that does not remove the quality of bigotry from the belief or the practice simply by stamping it with 'god said'.

[Toasterlad]

172. I Never Said Churches Should Be Forced to Do Anything.

Nor do I think they should have to perform interracial marriages, or stop preaching hate against Jews. I think they should be free to wallow in their own ignorance and superstition, preferably walled off from rational society, until they eventually die of rabies. I just don't think they should be able to effect the law in any way, shape or form.

[endarkenment]

163. replace homosexuals with jews and see where you get.

Many christian denominations had a long history of theologically justified antisemitism. Even if those who held to antisemitic beliefs managed to tolerate and respect jews, that does not render them magically not antisemites, it just means they kept their bigoted nonsense in check. I can imagine a person who doesn't viscerally feel any objection to jews at all, but still thinks to himself/herself, "Who am I to argue with God?", and that person, in my opinion, is a bigot.

[Silent3]

165. The word used in the OP was homoPHOBIC.

I realize many people use that word "homophobic" as simply meaning "bigoted against homosexuals", but it's literally fear of homosexuals. Even being a little broader in the interpretation of "-phobic", I'd still say that for the word to accurately apply there has to be some sort of strong emotional antipathy. As ill-considered as many religious doctrines might be, some people can and do follow what they've been taught or the way they've been raised as a matter of course, without necessarily having to have strong emotional feelings against the things they've been told are wrong.

Would you call all antisemites "semiphobic", or some such word, as if bigotry against Jews and fear of Jews was the same thing?

[Toasterlad]

174. The Basis of Religious Intolerance Is Fear.

Like all ignorant cults that don't understand something, they declared it ungodly.

[Silent3]

200. Fear that god or the spirits or whatever...

...don't like homosexuality isn't fear of homosexuality itself.

I think the term "homophobic" is truly applicable in some cases, but I also get the feeling that widespread use of the term is a tactical move -- the age-old technique of trying to frame your opponents as "cowards", whatever the issue might be.

The pro-war person calls the anti-war protester a coward who is afraid to fight.
The anti-war protester calls the pro-war person a coward who is afraid of people who are different.

You can always find a way to frame people you disagree with as "afraid".

If I say, "I'm afraid it's going to rain this weekend" that obviously doesn't mean I'm quaking in my boots with fear of a little precipitation. "Afraid" merely means "I'm unhappy with this outcome", "I would prefer that things had gone/would go differently".

When people are in bitter disagreement over political, social, and religious issues, however, they'll happily disregard such considerations of normal, reasonable interpretations of words, and play up "afraid" as necessarily meaning "fearful" or even "cowardly".

What I think you're doing is this:

You're starting from a viewpoint that I can agree with, that being against homosexuality is a bad thing, and the fewer people we have who think like that, the better it will be for everyone to live their lives in peace, free from discrimination and without feeling shame for their natural feelings.

You are very angry that this isn't the case. That anger is justifiable.

But then you're taking the step that I disagree with. You're "afraid" that any attempt to try to be more understanding of those you disagree with weakens opposition to those people, provides an opportunity for what they believe to be excused, provides the opportunity for those anti-homosexual beliefs to cause harm, so you'd rather deny and condemn attempts at deeper or more complex understanding, deny anything but the most rigid, inflexible, and negative interpretation of what you demand has to be happening inside the minds of people who have problems with homosexuality.

[Toasterlad]

203. Thanks For the Analysis, Sigmund.

Unfortunately, you haven't the remotest idea of what you're talking about.

I'm not "afraid" of understanding why people "have a problem" with homosexuality. I DON'T GIVE A SHIT WHY THEY "HAVE A PROBLEM" WITH HOMOSEXUALITY. Know why? Because anyone who "has a problem" with homosexuality is an ignorant jackass. They can go about the process of becoming something OTHER than an ignorant jackass by learning more about homosexuality and why it isn't anything they can rationally "have a problem" with. However, it is not incumbent upon me to waste ANY understanding on ignorant jackasses. BECAUSE I'M NOT TRYING TO STOP IGNORANT JACKASSES FROM GETTING MARRIED. Or serving in the military, or adopting children, or becoming teachers, even though I think stopping them from doing all of those things would be an ENORMOUS boon to mankind.

I'm the wrong homo to come to with your message of understanding. Been there, done that. Not the SLIGHTEST bit interested in finding out what makes assholes tick. All I want is for them to stop killing, beating, banning, firing, evicting, disowning, and dehumanizing my brothers and sisters. And I'm not interested in "reaching across the aisle" to find common ground with bigots, which is what my couldn't-be-less-interested-in-gay-equality-President has been preaching since before inauguration day. I'm sick and tired of being the bigger man. Being the bigger man gets you exactly squat, as our ineffectual Commander in Chief is proving with his ludicrous message of bipartisanship.

Instead, I'll just continue to do what I've been doing, and that's to try and yell louder than the bigoted assholes who require so much understanding, in the hopes that someone might finally hear me and say, "Hey, you know what? This guy's right. These ignorant jackasses are ruining our fucking country. Why the fuck are we wasting time trying to UNDERSTAND them?"

[Silent3]

206. I never realized the process of understanding was such a waste of time.

Silly me, all that wasted brainpower when I should have just been trying to shout louder.

[Toasterlad]

210. Why Should You? You're Probably One of the Privledged Majority.

You have the luxury of understanding, because nobody's bothering to oppress you.

I could tell you all about wastes of time, if you like. Wanna hear about rationally talking to fundies about why it's okay for gay people to have the same rights as anyone else? Speaking from personal experience, I can assure you that it can go on for hours, and they'll wind up exactly as ignorant and hateful as before you started.

Sorry you struck out with me on your crusade of understanding. Maybe you can go find a black guy who was just called a n*gger and ask him to try to be more understanding.

[Silent3]

211. You don't seem to understand what "understand" means.

"Understand" does not mean, or at least it certainly doesn't have to mean, "sympathize with", "go easy on", "expect to get somewhere with by talking nicely to", etc.

I certainly understand what it's like to be treated as an outcast. I may not have actually been gay, but because I was brainy, didn't like sports and was socially awkward I got called "faggot" plenty of times, was taunted, got beaten up, shut out, picked last in gym classes, and had less chance of dating a girl than some gay guys had with girls before deciding to follow their true orientation.

Anyone who doesn't think that leaves life-long scars (which includes a lot of that "privileged majority" you speak of, who would happily write my experiences off as "no big deal") doesn't know what the fuck they're talking about.

As an adult I've had much less trouble with my peers, but I could easily get into a lot of trouble and face a lot of discrimination if I ever ran for office, or had to live in the south, and it became widely known I'm an atheist.

Regardless of all of that, I don't see how I'd gain a thing by abandoning intellect for rage, by pigeonholing everyone who ever has or ever would give me grief with simplistic categorizations, or buy dropping reasoned argument in favor of shouting louder. I'm perfectly capable of fighting for myself, giving people hell who give me hell, and simultaneously understanding the reasons that other people have or would discriminate against me might be complex and can vary from person to person.

Perhaps I'm simply fortunate in that I don't find thinking and seeking understanding to be such arduous and time-consuming processes that I'd have to give them up in order to get other things done.

[endarkenment]

186. I'll go with the common meaning of the word, thanks.

Your attempt to avoid the mapping of anti-gay theology to anti-semitic theology is transparent. The OP did not mean the narrow literal definition of the common term homophobic, nor did I, nor did almost anyone else on this thread, except those attempting to justify bigotry under religious banners.

[Silent3]

189. Who's trying to justify anything?

You can reach a different and better understanding of why people think the things they think and believe the things they believe, you can eschew blanket generalizations as if they are and must be 100% perfect analyses of what has to be going on inside the head of everyone who disagrees with you, without that being a justification.

What you're doing is playing the standard strongly partisan role that equates understanding with excusing, that won't tolerate any chance of those lines being blurred, where you take a hard line position regardless of whether or not that's the most intellectual honest approach or not, and where you're ready to perceive and judge anyone who doesn't take the same hard line you take as either the enemy or aiding and abetting the enemy.

And if those nice intellectual-sounding words don't get my meaning across clearly, then how about this? If you're trying to accuse me of justifying prejudice against homosexuals, then f*ck you.

[Unvanguard]

209. True, you can be tolerant and homophobic.

But you are still homophobic.

[myrna minx]

101. Yes. n/t

[omega minimo]

102. What do they teach you in college? Critical thinking all the rage these days?

That's a no brainer, chief.

[armyowalgreens]

129. Few questions are no brainers.

[Toasterlad]

138. This One Is.

[omega minimo]

141. Discrimination is discrimination. Semantics are semantics. What does "irrational" have to do with it

College is fun. Long master debates feel good. Except sometime, they're just wanking.

You like running things up DU's flagpole and sometimes, someone may try to gently say......... Aw come on.

"Is being against homosexuality on a religious level inherently homophobic?"

You know it's discrimination.
You're arguing "semantics."
The other person is using some "irrational" religious argument.
What was the question?

"But I'm arguing semantics with someone and I really need to define these two things fully."

Define what? Discrimination? Irrational? Irrational fear?

"Is being against homosexuality on a religious level inherently homophobic?"

How is that "two things"? It's not. Unless you're gonna sit on the quad and parse "inherently" I suppose..........
.................

Sometimes you have to give up on conversations and attitudes that are based on semantic and religious straitjackets.

Discrimination is discrimination.

There is nothing in the Bible that supports it.

God is love.

God doesn't "hate."

College is fun.

"Is being against homosexuality on a religious level inherently homophobic?"

As with reproductive health issues, the bottom line on homosexuality is, it's not any of "your" business unless and until it is.

God says so.

[western mass]

103. Yes.

[and-justice-for-all]

104. Yes, religion is their excuse for being homophobic basterds..nt

[southernyankeebelle]

105. I don't think there really is anything in the bible about gays. I

suggest you e-mail Mel White, with Soulforce who is a pastor and was married to a woman over 20 yrs and now lives with a man and his ex-wive live by him. Really a nice man.

[ismnotwasm]

106. Oh yes

Both religion and language are part of what constructs social and cultural 'reality'. The language of religion has a huge and singular influence on how people perceive the world. Religious homophobia/hatred is inherent because of where it came from, the history before and after the events of bible. (There is also the question of the passages even being translated in proper context in the first place)

I recently finished a book on social reality construction. The book is an older one from the '60's, and I don't have it around, but your question brought it to mind.

[Marr]

110. Of course it is. It's picking and choosing scripture to justify a personal agenda.

But then, condemnation via the Bible always is. If you're going to point a passage in the Bible and say it proves your hatred of gays is correct, then you should be equally militant about every other passage in the Bible, and never work on Sunday, kill anyone who comes to your door pushing another religion, kill anyone wearing two types of fabric, etc.

It's either the "Word of God" or it is not. People who pick and choose do so to serve their own purposes. That is the one angle from which I can actually respect Fundamentalists. Real Fundamentalists-- not the cherry-picking hypocrites we know here in the States.

[bigwillq]

111. Yes.

Without a doubt it is.

[Pangolin2]

113. I imagine everyone here has seen the "Dear Dr. Laura" letter, but for those who haven't,

here it is ---(I think the author is unknown but if anyone can attribute it, I'd love to send him or her a
thankyou note) :D


Dear Dr. Laura,

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's law. I have learned a great deal from you, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.

When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. How should I deal with this?

I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as it suggests in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

Lev. 25:44 states that I may buy slaves from the nations that are around us. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans but not Canadians. Can you clarify?

I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 10:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

Lev. 20:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear prescription glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

oops...edit to take out html tags, sorry

[BolivarianHero]

115. Broadly speaking, yes..

If you considerable homosexual relations to be incompatible with your personal beliefs, that's your choice. If you translate that position into a refusal to extend the benefits of full citizenship, human rights, and civil liberties to your GLBTQ compatriots, then we have a serious fucking problem.

[SoCalDem]

117. Religion is irrational..end of dilemma

:evilgrin:

[Capn Sunshine]

118. only if you believe "God is Love"

or that God created people in his own image.
It doesn't say "except te gay"

That chapter in Leviticus where they get the line "homo=bad" also contains quite a bit of crap about killing your neighbors and daughters and using slaves.

[endarkenment]

119. yes of course

putting a religious wrapper around bigotry doesn't absolve it or change it in any way. The southern baptist church, for example, preached segregation on religious grounds up until quite recently. Were they not bigots?

[TexasObserver]

121. Yes.

[TrogL]

122. My former priest summed it up nicely

"I believe the homosexual acts are inherently sinful and against the Traditions of the Anglican Church. Be that as it may I will not address the issue from the pulpit and if seriously pressed on the issue I will feel the need to first air my views on bankers. Do NOT get me started."

[Toasterlad]

139. Your Former Priest Is Still an Ignorant Asshole.

But please thank him for generally keeping his ignorance to himself.

[omega minimo]

143. Ah, there's that magic word "inherently" again.

Perhaps a way to say "Don't blame me for my bigotry, the act is INHERENTLY wrong and I'm FORCED to judge it so." :crazy:

[TrogL]

157. Well, he was doing a crappy job of it

...considering I'm openly bi, my boyfriend (at the time) was singing in the choir, the previous organist and the one before him was openly gay as was some of the congregation and he didn't even raise an eyebrow.

[Rob Gregory Browne]

123. Yes. Institutionalized bigotry. nt

[TCJ70]

126. No.

I can be against something and not be afraid of it.

[FreeState]

146. The typical use of the word Homophobia does not draw on the word fear

unless your reading right wing talking points that try to muddy the issue by side tracking the topic of Homophobia to the roots of the word. Like many words their meanings and use are not determined by their linguistic origins.

When GLBT persons talk of Homophobia they talk of disapproval or laws against GLBT persons regardless of the persons feelings or lack of feelings.

[TCJ70]

149. I still think the answer is no.

It's rare, but possible.

[FreeState]

151. Care to site an example of where you think thats possible? n/t

[TCJ70]

154. People who are morally opposed to abortion...

...but would never vote to outlaw it. I believe it is possible to hold a view apposed to homosexuality yet still see how gay rights are important.

[FreeState]

158. Thats apples and oranges IMO

An abortion is not an immutable trait.

Would you say the same to this?

"People who are morally opposed to Jews...
...but would never vote against their civil rights. I believe it is possible to hold a view apposed to Jews yet still see how Jewish Civil Rights are important."

or

"People who are morally opposed to Blacks...
...but would never vote against their civil rights. I believe it is possible to hold a view apposed to Blacks yet still see how Jewish Civil Rights are important."

If the KKK suddenly stopped protesting but held to their beliefs and only insisted on personally segregating themselves from others would they be any less racist/anti-semetic/homophobic?

[Sapphocrat]

166. Actually, FS, I've stopped buying that line...

...i.e., "I'm against homosexuality, but you can't call me a homophobe, because I'm not afraid of homosexuals."

Every single person, without exception, "against"/"opposed to" homosexuality is indeed a homophobe: Whatever the reason, they are indeed afraid -- of some perceived threat to their own "lifestyle," of going to Hell, of going to Heaven but not being worthy of earning their 72 virgins or their own planet in the Celestial Kingdom, of being ostracized by their church / family, of not fitting in with their homophobic peers, of being seen as "unmanly," of confronting the possibility that they themselves may not be as straight as they'd like to think... of whatever.

There's definitely fear involved, no matter what the excuse for being "against" homosexuality.

I don't mean to sound nitpicky, but I'm absolutely fed up with Anti-Gays who pretend they're not quaking in their boots over some fear of us, and of whatever imagined evil we represent to them.

And I'm kicking myself for ever acceding to the idea that homophobia can mean mere "aversion," without fear. There's fear. There's definitely fear.

I, for example, have an aversion to heterosexual sex (not because I'm afraid of it, but because it is completely unnatural to me), yet I'm not opposed to it. If I were opposed to it -- if I were a heterophobe -- I would have to have a reason; I would have to be afraid of what I thought would happen if I didn't try to stop it.

And that's what "to oppose" is: to fight, to try to stop.

Homophobia = aversion without fear? Nahhhh. Don't buy that. Won't fall for it again.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

194. ..

:rofl:

[TheKentuckian]

130. It certainly is if that personal religious belief translates to civic action, commerce, of votes

If not then it still allows that person to set themselves up as judge of people and arbiter of God's will. I think that is different than using your nonsecular beliefs as an excuse or a reason for oppression but still some rather nasty shit to carry around in one's heart. In this case a person is a hypocrite due to the whole "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" type thing but they are being what prejudiced/bigoted is to racism, rather than equivalent to being actually racist.

It is a thin dividing line to most people but I think there is a difference between what goes on between your ears and a person's actual actions. Also, what do you do with the gray area that exists on say an area like abortion? There are a significant amount of people who personally believe abortion is wrong but will also fight tooth and nail for a women's right to decide for herself. I'd imagine this may apply to being gay for some folks and to be honest I have no idea how to label that. Or how to think about people that only date a certain race of people (theirs or another).

I guess in the end, only the actions and to a lesser degree, the motivations behind them matter.

[Hansel]

133. Who chose the religion?

There are religions that don't teach homophobia. Using religion as is excuse is just that, an excuse.









Edited because I used wrong word.

[JuniperLea]

135. Yes, because I will never choose to be part of an organized religion...

That is so filled with hate.

Gays and immigrants must be the new lepers... :eyes:... and all the fine, upstanding Xtians have forgotten how Jesus taught them to treat lepers.

I'm with Ghandi... I love Christ, but his Christians, not so much. Paraphrased... natch.

[closeupready]

140. And also, who here would absolve a racist because their church told them racism is good?

Or whose church preached that anti-semitism is good because it's punishment for killing Christ?

So it is with this prejudice. Doesn't matter WHAT your church teaches you - if you are bigoted, you're bigoted. Period.

[DevonRex]

142. Being against it on any level is homophobic. nt

[Thickasabrick]

145. Yes. I want to invent a new religion. In it the only people's sins that

you worry about are your own.

[Lerkfish]

153. its different from the generic brand of homophobia in that they are being PROGRAMMED

to hate homosexuals by their leaders, and brainwashed into thinking its god's will.

under that circumstance, its POSSIBLE that someone who does not examine what they are being told, could develop ignorant self-righteous justification in their tiny minds, instead of the generic homophobe who thinks its "icky".

[ArbustoBuster]

155. Yes,

One may decide that the homophobia in a religion is repugnant and leave the religion. In fact, any person with a functioning ethical mind will know that the religion is false because it's promulgating evil ideas like homophobia, and will therefore leave immediately. Someone who stays in a religion even though it is promoting evil ideas is himself acting to promote that evil.

Religions claim to be divinely guided, full of moral exemplars, and to have holy writings and/or holy ideas that are beyond question. If someone comes forward claiming to be a representative of an omnibenevolent being and at the same time is pushing something evil, you know that person is wrong and his religion is likewise wrong.

[Call Me Wesley]

156. Yes.

No need for semantics in this discourse, but I know you like the big words, even when it's a simple matter of reality. And I pretty much doubt that there's an irrational part involved, since it's so blatantly obvious. It's not an irrational discrimination, it's a pretty pure and conscious one, so it's a rational one, because the one following a certain religion/faith/belief and lives up to these beliefs, adapted them rationally.

Fear is still rational; you know what you're afraid of. There's something else that doesn't translate well into English, which is 'Angst.' This is irrational. Fear's a hard fact. There's nothing irrational about it.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

167. Yes.

[DefenseLawyer]

170. Is blowing someone's brains out on religious grounds murder? n/t

[donco6]

175. Religion is just an excuse for every manner of bigotry.

And that coming from a long-time ex-fundie.

[Canuckistanian]

177. Where are the laws on eating shellfish and shrimp?

Leviticus specifies no less a ban on eating fish with no scales than it does on homosexuality.

And Lesbianism isn't even mentioned.

[berni_mccoy]

178. If the person you are arguing with is Christian, send them this

God Loves Gay People

http://www.theology.edu/diatribes/diatribe04.htm

[VOX]

179. YES, emphatically -- the "religious level" is from an *interpretation* of Bronze-Age documents.

And no two interpretations are alike on these matters. Therefore, any religious argument against gay culture comes from a consciously chosen interpretation and perception (dogma, if you will), and that interpretation/perception is utterly subjective, and that equals homophobia.

[Freddie Stubbs]

181. That probably depends on what you mean by "being against homosexuality"

Are you talking about people who are opposed to equal rights for gays, or people who believe that homosexuality is sinful but are not opposed to equal rights?

[OneBlueSky]

182. is supporting slavery based on the Bible inherently inhumane? . . . n/t

[Spider Jerusalem]

183. Is believing that other races are inferior on religious grounds inherently racist?

Same rules apply.

[Ulysses_The_Red]

185. NO WAI D00D!

Irrational beliefs in the myths of ancient Semitic desert peoples is totally excuse enough to do whatever I damn well please. It's called "religious freedom."

[Ulysses_The_Red]

184. My religious beliefs say that I don't have to feed my children

Is it ok to let them starve? Not an abstract question, this happened in my hometown. Some sects don't believe in medicine for children and kids die (http://religiouschildabuse.blogspot.com/2008/04/childs-death-tests-oregon-law-on-faith.html)

The point is that religious beliefs are backward, anti-scientific, and bigoted at their core. They are irrational and destructive, no matter how we spin it. People need rationality, not faith in "god."

[kevinbgoode]

187. It is most certainly heterosupremacist

and the blatant hypocrisy is astounding. If one is taught that God created Man in his own image, and then crafted Woman from a Man's ribcage, then wasn't that the original homosexual act?

One must also remember that it was the heterosexual relationship which was the cause for original sin. Since God obviously had sexual intercourse with Adam in order to create Eve, the need for humans to reproduce was established upon the disobeyance of those humans to God, who could have easily created as many humans as He chose.

Bear with me, since I'm using the claims of the most strictly heterosupremacist patriarchal penis-supremacist "religions" here.

It just makes sense to me that it was heterosexual behavior which created original sin, and that was reflected in the consideration that, for centuries, the pain of menstruation and childbirth was caused by such sin. It was the heterosexual relationship which defied God and caused the hardships associated with the defiant 'free will." And since the beginning of evangelical time, the heterosupremacists have tried desperately to elevate themselves as God's favorites in guilt over their destruction of paradise.

[Lyric]

188. Yes. Without exception.

Being against homosexuality for ANY reason is homophobic.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

190. was being racist, based on religion ok? was being casteist, ok?

was being sexist ok?

[Smarmie Doofus]

192. This particular prejudice is dressed up in all sorts of disguises.

Including... but not limited to "religious". I doubt that rapper homophobes or elementary school bullies are motivated by religious considerations.

These particular elements are not especially known for their piety.

Yet they are among the most *relentlessly* homphobic.

So... in a word... the answer is "yes".

[arbusto_baboso]

193. To quote former Episcopal Bishop John Spong.....

"Elevating your personal prejudices to the level of 'God's Will' is nothing less than evil."

[jeremyfive]

197. Why do America's "Christless-Christians" Overlook Jesus' Message in the Gospel?

There are loads of passages in the bible that can be used to justify everything from slavery, to freedom to orgy.

Why do the right wing nuttybirds refuse to follow, or even acknowledge the teachings of Jesus Christ? They are the first to judge. The first to insist upon being rich. The first to criticize others. It goes on and on. If you listen to them, you would think Jesus' Sermon on the Mount was "Don't be Queer".

Jesus could have spoken about anything he wanted. The fact that America's Christless Christians choose to ignore all of his teachings doesn't mean that the essence of Christian thought is not in his message.

[Vidar]

198. Yes.

[GodlyDemocrat]

201. By definition, yes

Do they have that constitutional right? Yes, but they are homophobic ... again, by definition.

[NutmegYankee]

202. The religious beliefs are not homosexual - they make that up to justify their hate.

Paul's rant in Romans 1 referred to the shrine prostitution practices of the pagan priests who worshiped the Roman Gods. The Pagans, "...who suppress the truth by their wickedness" were the object of derision by Paul.

Homophobic "Christians" take Romans 1:27 out of context to justify their hate.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc5.htm

[MellowDem]

204. If they believe what they believe...

then they are being perfectly rational according to their beliefs. Indeed, it would be irrational for them to believe that way and not be against the idea of homosexuality I suppose. Still, I guess it would also be possible to view homosexuality as a sin and not be "afraid" of gays or feel any need to discriminate against them.

Regardless, I think "homophobe", like "racist" is often used wrongly. For example, simply stating that you believe homosexuality is a choice does not mean you are homophobic per se, but the overlap of course does exist to the point that people will assume so.

I also think the term can unfortunately distract from what a lot of people labeled as "homophobic" really are afraid of, and that is gender roles being violated. The only reason being "gay" is such an affront to so many is not the idea of men liking men and women liking women itself so much as traditional ideas of gender and identity being challenged. A lot of people revel in the stability of gender roles that their religion/culture/society pushes on them, and when that is threatened, they get scared because it forces them to confront themselves as individuals instead of "men" and "women", with all the cultural baggage/cushion those labels carry.

Of course, you have the fear mongers out there who really are trying to make a lot of people scared of gays, which I find hilarious personally. I think the main problem for a lot of homophobes is that they don't know any open gay people personally, so everything they "know" about gay people is all propaganda and scare tactics.

So, I guess given the circumstance, "being against homosexuality" (which I will interpret to mean thinking it is wrong or a sin because of your religion) does not automatically make you homophobic. I've known people who personally believe homosexuality is wrong but still have gay friends and are not afraid of them and do not discriminate against them or the LGBTQ community at large.

[Unvanguard]

208. Yes, absolutely, definitely, no question

It doesn't matter what religious excuse you have for bigotry: it is still bigotry.