Is it religions fault that the discrimination against the GLBT exists?

Views: 1461

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Yes you can, religion EVOLVED! Religion is (as all things) a natural thing. Religion has nothing to say over Biology, but Biology has plenty to say about religion.

Everything evolves in one way or another. Businesses, computers, car design. manufacturing, phones, etc... doesn't mean it has anything to do with biology. Biology is devoid of religion. Religion is a human construct, biology is how humans are constructed. One has nothing to do with the other. 

Psychology and anthropology on the other hand, they have something to say about Religion. 

Would it be helpful to drop the concept of "Homosexual" and instead replace it with "Mammalian Sexuality Spectrum" ?

I suggest this because it is very clear that in nature ALL mammals have a spectrum of sexuality, in fact given that biological systems are what they are there can never be a black and white result, statistically there has to be some variation - hence a spectrum. Now on top of this you have all the social nuances of the human race, these being shaped by such things as religion, education, the basic misogynism of a society (links back to religion) all trying to force human behavior into some abstract idea of what it considers "normal" at a particular point in time.

Religion is just one part of the picture, though it is certainly a most cruel and brutally violent part of it. Tolerance of variations in the human race, be they sexual, skin tone etc all starts in the home,after that it is those with a big voice in society that have the next biggest influence, sadly they (politicians, religious nuts leaders, media pundits. Sadly in some countries it is those voices that are currently ignoring their humanitarian responsibilities for reasons of personal gain.

Nina van der Roos.

Would it be helpful to drop the concept of "Homosexual" and instead replace it with "Mammalian Sexuality Spectrum" ?

I think more people are trending this way in some form or another.  My major issue is that I would't want future generations growing up in the 'straight until proven gay' atmosphere I grew up in.  It wasn't particularly hateful or ill-intentioned, but there's a difference between a person adopting a term like 'heterosexual' or 'homosexual' because they, personally, feel it fits, and trying to fit oneself into a term because there is a social pressure to do so.

I think we are already capable of this for selection factors apart from gender.  People display various preferences where ethnicity is concerned, yet most of us don't feel the need to assign a term to every variation on ethnic preference that exists (which is not to say such terms have never existed).  This is not to suggest that sexual preference based on gender and ethnicity operate under the same mechanisms; it's just about language and cultural treatment.  Let each person enter into the consensual relationships that fulfill their needs without needing to get too bogged down in labels.  I would like to live in a world where the gender of the person I date is no more remarkable than their ethnicity, height, hair colour, education (etc.).

It is easier, in my eyes, to recognize a spectrum than to try to define some sort of supposed norm and then map out all significant variants from that norm, which is what we seem to do now.

The term 'homophobia' does not refer to an irrational psychological fear in the sense of agoraphobia or arachnophobia.  It is more akin to a word like 'misogyny'.

Yet it's odd that you make this statement, then throw around the term 'political correctness' as if it was a scheme to victimize the status quo.  Did it occur to you that these supposedly PC people are actually just following the sincerity of their own convictions?

People of any sexual orientation have the freedom to be repulsed by whatever they please, certainly, but if they want to use their freedom of speech to express that repulsion, they should expect others to use their free speech to rebuke them based on their own convictions.  That's how it works.  

I want all gay people to know that their acts are repulsive to straight people - but that by keeping to themselves they have every right to be tolerated.

Not even sure what that means.  Tolerated how?  Where I come from, a certain level of tolerance is required by law.  One cannot discriminately assault a person, refuse them business services, expel them from school, or terminate their employment (as a few examples).  This applies to all people equally.  Gay people should feel no compulsion to keep to themselves to receive the basic level of tolerance that the law affords all people.

If you simply mean everyday tolerance in the sense of getting along politely, well, no one is obligated to tolerate anyone.  I certainly wouldn't change my life one iota just to gain the tolerance of everyone who disapproves of me.  It's not practical; someone is always going to disapprove.

 They should also learn to respect the revulsion that they stir in other people...

Why?  It's the problem of those that are repulsed.  It's only natural for LGBT people to want to fight for a world in which they are accepted.  Many of them have gone through a great deal of prejudice and nastiness in their lives, so don't expect them to have the energy babysitting the feelings of people that are repulsed by them.  It's unreasonable.

...and not hide behind false assertions of phobia and political correctness.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't hide behind either.  I simply don't have one iota of sympathy towards your repulsion.  It has nothing to do with being politically correct; I just don't respect it in the slightest.  I respect your right to feel that way, but I don't respect the repulsion itself.  Millions of people have learned to let go and actually be accepting of homosexuality, or at least indifferent.  I think their lives are better for it.  Less stress that way.  If you're not for it, that's your choice.  Feel repulsed all you want, but it's your problem.

Repulsion of anything (whether it's spiders, dogs, cats, feces, etc) is a culturally learned response. Basically, you learn it, it's not a natural thing. 

Using foods as an example, some people find the concept of eat raw fish repulsive. Here in the U.S. we're generally taught that eating raw fish is bad, so you get people who find it repulsive and refuse to eat it. Whereas in Japan it's been a cultural mainstay for centuries,, so they think nothing of it. 

What I'm saying is this.. your were taught to be repulsed by homosexuality, it didn't come naturally. .. That being said, I could show you a few gay people who are repulsed by straight people showing affection in public, so does that mean no one (gay or straight) should hold hands or kiss each other on a city street?

No, I don't think so. There is a great deal of evidence that it is related to low IQ. Many heterosexual people find the idea of gay sex distasteful just as many gay people find the idea of straight sex distasteful. This is just the normal reaction to thinking about sex with someone you do not find sexually attractive.  Intelligent people realise that this reaction is all to do with them and nothing to do with the opposite sexuality and knowing this makes them reject the notion that gay sex is actually distasteful.  Less intelligent people may feel that their own reactions are all the evidence they need to say something is wrong. Religion encourages them to believe they are right in this and gives them the excuse to say this openly.

I agree that discrimination against GLBT people is down to the sanction of religions. If there was no justification for this attitude then more people would feel ashamed of any homophobic thoughts they may have and reason with themselves about it.

Clearly because in history there are plenty of examples where it existed and was not treated with the contempt that the crazy god worshippers seem to have for it now.

It is interesting that whilst male homosexuality gets lambasted from all fronts, there is an enormously enthusiastic heterosexual porn market for showing lesbian sex.  I have not come across any women who find man on man "action" to be erotic although there may well be a few. 

It seems to me that the male of the species is more predatory in seeking sexual encounters and acknowledge that in other males.  Homophobic comments include such expressions of "backs to the wall" warnings, as if the homosexual male will attempt to penetrate the heterosexual man sexually.  That gives rise to physical fear, and consequently repulsion.  The female is generally seen as more passive in encounters - for example the guy asks the girl to dance, to date, etc. so  there is less threat perceived in that gender. 

The religious groups are appealing to basic (fear) emotions to garner support for their doctrines - in order to align with a primitive fear they provide biblical reasons to support the fear and turn it into a verbalisable argument. We have all seen the contradictory quotes in the bible, it is clearly not because of a God that these people hate homosexuals - hate is almost always based in fear.

Stregs

Of course there will be some women that find man on man action to be stimulating.  I have known a girl who admitted this to me - she enjoyed gay porn.  

2 is better than one, right?  :P

@Mz Strega..

More then a few years ago, I worked at newspaper shop here in MN, that along with selling comic books, sports cards, magazines, and of course newspapers, also sold porn vids and magazines. We had a 50/50 mix of male and female workers there.. Until I worked there, I never knew a woman who got into the gay male porn. Granted, that was just one of the women there...

In Japanese pop culture they have things like shounen ai (I think that literally means boy love) which are generally graphic novels that depict males being affectionate with males.  It's not necessarily sexual or what we would refer to as romantic, but often is.  Primary readership seems to be female.  There are other variations on the same thing which reach different levels of sexual explicitness such as yaoi and june.

My description is probably a bit inaccurate ( think I a couple terms might be perfect synonyms), but I think I have the gist of it.   Point being, man on man action targeted at female audiences.

RSS

  

Blog Posts

People

Posted by ɐuɐz ǝllǝıuɐp on July 28, 2014 at 10:27pm 4 Comments

Services we love

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by Dan.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service