"the Greeks even advocating men having sex with young boys."
Mammals frequently use sexual acts as a form of dominance. Have you ever had your leg humped by a dog? Or a better question is have you ever had your leg humped by a female dog?
As I see it there are two types of behavior that are classified as homosexual. One is the sexual abuse aspect which I do not consider as exclusive to being gay. The other is being born Gay.
I would argue that most of the fear stems from religions being unable to distinguish the two groups from one another.
having sex with children is pedophilia and has nothing to do with being Gay. men having sex with children is a crime and abusive. being gay is loving being attracted to the opposite sex from birth and being in consensual relationships.
Are you saying that it is generally perceived that there are two types of homosexual behavior, or that you think there are two types?
I don't think sexual abuse should be classified under homosexuality at all. A person's sexual orientation (homo or hetero) has nothing to do with sexual abuse. It is abuse only when one person is forcing their self on another.
I think the fear stems from people thinking homosexuality is "yucky". I think the authors in the Bible who decided homosexuality was an abomination were turned-off by the idea, and thought they should condemn it officially in a book of rules.
I think it's a distinction problem and a cultural message of "ewww that's weeeird!!!" There's a hypothetical-situation meme floating around the internet (even here on Think Atheist) that asks if it's wrong for a brother and sister to secretly have sex. They use birth control, so there's no worry about reproducing a potentially genetically dysfunctional child, and no one but them will ever know. Most people insist it's wrong, but they have trouble articulating why. They come up with lots of rationalizations, but are mainly incapable of giving a good reason. It's just... wrong. It feels wrong. They don't like thinking about it. It's "gross."
People seem incapable of moving past preconceived, cultural biases. It's all about how something makes us feel. They don't ask why they feel that way. It's too uncomfortable to even consider these notions are anything but immoral. But... their feelings are simply wrong. Homosexuality is not sexual abuse. If males dominate females through a sex act, that is just as wrong as a man dominating another man or boy in a sex act. If it's non-consensual, it's wrong. Yes, sexual domination happens in nature as well, but that doesn't make it okay. That's the naturalistic fallacy. We try to be better and more considerate of others; we're trying to consciously evolve past our animalistic urges to something more enlightened and altruistic.
Catholicism, perhaps, but perhaps not all religions.
in general lack of education is a problem and can cause homophobia but look at pope and imams. they are ready sent you to hell just because you dont share their nelifs opinions and you allowed to promote your sexuality.
I agree with your statement that homophobia is a lack of education and I add ( fear ..... )
No, religion is just expressing (what I think to be) is an innate phobia of homosexuality that all humans have. When we see that others in our group are homosexual, we see that they are a-lot less likely to pass on their genes, thus making them un-fit. The fear comes in when it is some-one who is more closely related to use, when we really instinctually become uncomfortable with homosexuality, because they share the same genes we have, and thus we crave for them to pass on their genes (which are by relation, a fraction of our own genes). Religion just takes hold and exaggerates this instinctual uncomfortable-ness. This creates cultural norms of hating homosexuality and trying to force people into heterosexuality to reproduce (to increase the family’s fitness, or the group’s fitness). But luckily there are plenty of people who rationalize over their instincts (or don't have those instincts at all) and understand that people should not be tied-down to biological limitation or evolutionary needs to reproduce. That is what I believe homophobia originates from.
I think he means un-fit in the natural selection, "survival of the fittest" sense, i.e., the "fittest" is the one who is most likely to pass on his/her genetic material. He could probably have phrased it better, but I don't think any malice or prejudice was intended.
That is a perfect point though, that the fact that it still exist makes it a fit trait. But prehaps I mis-spoke in the first place. Most evidence points to a non-genetic origination for homosexuality. The cause of it is improper (if you want to use that word) deliverings of hormones while in the whome, changing the brain's sexual developement (to more male or female), independently of actual gender. So in this case, we can not even view homosexuality as a biological trait, as it can not be inherited (for all we know). If I had to label it, I would call it a "disorder" that does not need to be fixed, if that makes sense? Like a good (or neutral) disorder! I don't know a nicer term to call it, I hope that made sense with-out sounding too rude.
Is murder a fit trait?
No, murder is not a fit trait - it's not even a trait - it's a behavior. If you are here just to troll then I hope you do not become well fed.