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

Views: 1478

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

this is boring. I've gone over this already.  manipulation of environment, labeling from a cultural perspective, cultural need for power and the validation of associated behaviors.  I know this is a simple view but Nature made the anus for excrement not for the human mammalian brain to seek boundless pleasure or self gratification thru sexual behavior. (The vagina for the insertion of a penis) Hell we can say that according to our view, animals practice beastiality, so it's "normal" for us to follow suit since we too are animals. We can pass a law to make it legal, why not, it's within our scope to behave as such. Homosexuality is aberrant in Nature (not practiced universally or even in great numbers) even among zoo animals

Individualism allows for a few "individuals" to express their personal desires. Ideas of "freedom" and "rights" allow other "individuals" to support them because they too feel that this idea of "rights and freedom" shouldn't be breached because they too have them.  Now when this is juxtaposed against the idea that we are above Nature and are boundless, hell we'll almost accept any behavior.  

Why does the g-spot exist then? Whats that for? 

How can you be sure it exists...? Have you ever seen it.. ? LMAO 

@Shakaba... 

As for not being practiced universally, you apparently didn't follow those links I provided. They would show you that in fact it is practiced universally. 
So what if its not practiced in great numbers in animals? That doesn't invalidate it.  
 

Sounds like both of your suppositions have just bit the dust there. 

I missed this earlier:

@Shabaka Tecumseh "I know this is a simple view but Nature made the anus for excrement not for the human mammalian brain to seek boundless pleasure or self gratification thru sexual behavior. (The vagina for the insertion of a penis)"

So do you also say that oral/genital sex is aberrant? By the logic you present here, it is. The mouth is for eating and making sounds, not sexual gratification. Would you say that the only time a penis should be inserted in a mouth is when the intent is to bite it off?

If you don't consider oral/genital sex aberrant, how is that not a hypocritical view?

My best friend is gay , we have been friends for 44 years and I am glad that I didn't have to go through all of that thinking to value  him as a terrific friend !!!! We just love and respect each other as human's.  Not as a species, or competition,, social functioning being palatable.... geez after all of that ... who would have any friend.....  I just want to live and enjoy my time on earth . If I meet a person I like and they happen to be gay , so what !!!!!     I have many gay friends and my children have gay friends . I taught them well and they don't thing any thing different about their friends gay or straight. 

That's the problem.. you can't unify religion and biology. 

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?

RSS

Blog Posts

Creationists Dispute

Posted by Fouad on December 24, 2014 at 7:26am 3 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 umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service