Completely agree, I do! All religion does is exaggerate and institutionalizes already existing cultural occurances and biases.
All? No. Nearly all? Yes.
Since gay men have some brain features that more resemble female brains (resulting in a mix of behaviors) there is some crediblity for being uncomfortable with individuals who are both male and female IF the society is restrictive or primitive.
Since the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Xianity, Islam) can be validly called restrictive and/or primitive, they do qualify as conditions for promoting homophobia. Other religions have also been the source of oppression but some - like the Native American beliefs - have been open and accepting. The Mayans even expected their pubescent boys to select another boy as companion until age 18 when they would usually choose a female spouse. Males who chose a male spouse at 18 were considered blessed by the gods. (The downside being that those blessed by the gods could not cheat on their spouse without deadly consequnces.)
Reply by Zach Winkler on Saturday - No, religion is just expressing (what I think to be) is an innate phobia of homosexuality that all humans have. When we see ... homosexual, ... we crave for them to pass on their genes (which are by relation, a fraction of our own genes ...
You have this backwards. Any "altruism" is individuals for the tribe and that is actually self-interest since when the tribe does well, it improves the individual's chance of survival. It does not extend to the genetic level.
Personal specualtion: If anything (given what we currently know), homosexuality might be a epigenetic response to too many males. Add in the fact that many (all?) gays have creative and nuturing urges (maybe due to the brain features) that have probably facilitated the care of the tribes' children as well as being a significant driving force behind humanity becoming more civilized.
Reply by Shabaka Tecumseh yesterday - People who choose the gay lifestyle do have the same rights ... Marriage was established btw a man and a woman looooooog before homosexuals decided they wanted to marry too and that has nothing to do with "rights" but acceptance.
As I and others have pointed out, several cultures have had gay marriage. Also pointed out was that slavery was established looooong before the attempts to eliminate it. (I say attempts because it still occurs in the world.) You have rights and acceptance because decent people chose to make it so. You've started on the path to becoming a decent person by rejecting the god virus infecting you. Please continue on that path towards decency and reject your issues with other people.
I was in no way dismissing lesbians with this post. I know of no studies indicating significant brain differences as there are in males. From what I have read, there seems to be a lack of information on any physiological differences between lesbian and str8 women. This does not mean there are none - it means there has not been enough research.
This leads to my last point. Religion is often dismissive or even negative about sex even going so far as to be dismissive (of lesbians) and/or negative about the sexual partners of men (women and gay men). This then infects the culture. We have a long way to go and need to be careful the religious forces do not gain control of any of the (semi-)free societies. (Yes, I am worried about that for America right now. Sorry to end on a down note.)
We are talking about gay marriage in THIS culture today, now..(this is why we are talking about it, albeit I'm sure in other cultures it MAY have existed) and here it was established loooong before gays sort it out.
I dare you to point out a historical enslavement that was based solely on skin color. That was established long ago and again we are talking about THIS culture.
Ward, how arrogant of you to imply that I'm not decent because I don' t agree with you. And I'll bet you'll have some on here that share that same arrogant self imposed privilege.
It's not because you don't agree with me. You don't agree with anyone from what I've read. And the wording was meant to imply that you were in part decent - sorry that wasn't clear. In every thread I've read in which you made a post, you have been contrary to everyone - sometimes even twisting what they wrote just so you could make a contrary challenge. That is arrogance.
The post above the one I'm replying to doesn't make any sense to me.
You created a screen name that is half Native American (Tecumseh) and half something else (Shabaka) - possibly black or African or Wookie (said it aloud and it made me think you're Chewbacca's brother maybe). That doesn't tell us who you are or what your skin color is. Frankly, you sound like a homophobic, racist white theist trying to present a negative character of an angry black atheist - that's where my attitude is coming from. I've met quite a few people of all races and learned to judge them on their own behavior and your behavior says to treat you poorly. I'm trying not to - but often failing.
Here, everyone is blue (look at the color of your name) - why not try talking with us instead of challenging everyone on everything?
I answer your question with another question, if religion is the root of all homophobia and religion hasn't been around forever; which homophobic wrote down that it was bad?
My point is that the action of making homosexuality against religion was spurred by something and someone outside religion.
When was homosexuality 'made' to be against religion? How have you come to evaluate that homosexuality 'is against' religion? I see nothing any any definition of homosexuality that even implies Atheist, let alone anti-theism.
People have this same problem when they state that "Science" is for "Atheism" or that "Science" is "anti-theistic".
I have friends that are gay and still believe in god, but not religion, so not all gay people are against religion.
Religion is, in large part, about control of populations, though other programs of control have existed. Control of sex is always primary in any effective social or cultural program. Since it is not possible to do away with sex altogether if one wants to actually perpetuate one's cultural program (some religious sects have tried, and died out as a result), it must be relegated to the narrowest interpretation possible: under circumstances sanctioned by the controlling power, for the purposes of 'swelling the ranks' only. Homosexuality, along with any form of 'recreational' sex is almost always categorized as 'morally wrong' (or else tightly controlled, as in the temple examples given elsewhere) under a social or cultural program that seeks control. It's just that simple.
(And why on earth would you say religion hasn't been around 'forever?' What a silly thing to suggest...)
I agree with your last post, except for the last part..... Religion has not been around forever, it first evolved when humans began evolving culture as we know it (probably 100,000 to 50,000 years ago). Did you just mean "forever" as in human-history?