Why do Religions hate homosexuals, and want to kill them?

[Munch]

I was hoping I would have an article, or a video, discussing this subject. But the problem I've found is when asking this question, is that it only ever seems to focus on individual religions, such as why christianity hates gays, why islam does, why Scientology does, why mormons do.

But what I'm more looking for is an explanation as to why so many of these huge organized religions, and some of the smaller ones, all seems to share the same outlook on homosexuality. If its either what they call Sin, or an affront to Allah, or their version of a divination, all these major religions seem to look at homosexuals in the same way, like some primitive backwash to tribal times.

Now it could be believed that is the reason why, that its just the primitive nature of religions, in sense of old tribal bigots and their stories of hokum. However I found something interesting. Even today, certain tribes in tropical climates, who have their own beliefs and rituals associated with that tribe, do no carry that same outlook. The Sambian tribe of New Guinea, practice a ritual where young men are expected to give oral sex to the older warriors of the tribe, which is believed in them swallowing the older warriors semen will make them into strong warriors themselves, even made to be kept away from women of the tribe until the ritual is done.

In ancient greek religions, same sex partnering happened both in the fictional stories, and in conflict, where warriors were told to choose a male lover as his companion, as it was believed two lovers in battle would fight alongside each other far better. Of course much of the homoerotic nature of greek culture was wiped out when Christianity came in and bulldozed over it, trying to cover up those practices.



Infact despite Indias current aggressive stance against homosexuals, its shown in many ancient indian artworks that those practices took place a long time ago, but have been cast off from the modern version of india.



Even the ancient Aztecs have a gay god, Xochipilli, who was the patron of art, games, beauty and songs, and had same sex followers.



So interestingly, both in older times and in current tribal cultures away from the rest of the world, homosexual practices were a thing, where as today, the mega religions that indoctrinate thousands across the world (except perhaps Buddhism, though even some Sects of Buddhism prohibit it) all have the same opinion of it, that its an 'evil' that needs either be forced out of a person, or that person needs to die.

Is this really just something inherently part of the primitive nature of humans in general, because when I think about the atheist community, and those who have cast off religion, the greater percentage of those that do are all for gay rights, even those who might wince at the thought of same sex couples would support their right to it.

[TomFoolery]

I think it's because certain societies make sex in general a shameful thing. When sex is seen as "icky" or "embarrassing" then the idea of two people of the same gender probably just becomes too much, like the next logical step is to imagine their sex life and if your own sex life makes you blush, well... I think because our society is becoming more open about sex and intimacy that homosexuality is becoming less of a big deal.

[Aletheia]

If the religion and/or society is pessimistic then it's likely that sex will be shamed in some degree. Interfering with the way people feel toward sex makes them much easier to control, since people who are generally unhappy are seeking reward or redemption.

Homosexuality, or sexuality in general was never to blame, and had they not been so tied to our very being, then those seeking control through religion or law would've never taken an interest. Civilizations like the ancient Greeks or Romans valued sexual freedom. It was integrated into some of their economic and political services.

[Baruch]

The Greco-Romans were not liberals.  Their tolerance of variant-sex activity didn't come from liberalism, but from their mythology.  In their mythology, the ability to do anything you wanted to whoever you wanted was an expression of power ... ultimately divine power as demigods in the case of the upper class.  For example nudity ... the Emperor was shown nude on statues meant to convey his divinity, not his humanity.  Statues of gods in general might expose more of the body than would be considered appropriate for mere humans .. as well as display a superhuman male or female physique.  This was apparent on the coinage also ... originally only gods appeared on coins ... it was Alexander who started the trend toward personal divinization ... which reached its apotheosis with Augustus.  So sex was only limited by hubris ... too much of anything (nothing in excess) was considered bad ... men in particular had public duties that needed attending to.  Same thing with wine or drug consumption ... in moderation it was OK.  This is why moderate pederastry in particular was tolerated.  Women were devalued by both societies, in spite of goddess worship ... goddess worship being second class worship.  The problem with male on male sexuality was ... who would be bottom.  It wasn't the gay sex that was opposed ... but it was inappropriate for any man to be a bottom.  This is in societies where casual sex with male and female slaves, by both master and mistress was routine.  The privacy of the home and the devaluation of women, meant that female on female sex wasn't even noticed ... both were bottoms as far as the men were concerned.  Similarly the older male on younger male pattern ... this had to stop when the younger male got older, because otherwise the power problem reared its ugly head.  And women did know about sex aids, they have been seen on the pottery, not just the hetairai at the symposia.  War was of course sexual, since it was the main source of slaves ... and in iconography the conquered country was depicted as a foreign woman about to be raped.  The conquered men were depicted as wounded and dying ... or supplicating for their lives.

So basically a power relationship thing ... if this developed from Greco-Roman society.  Jewish society on the other hand was more liberal, but still allowed certain abuses per the OT.  IMHO ... like part of Christianity being developed from the East ... I think the puritanism against sex was driven by fear of STM ... which was legitimate ... and by ascetic practices from India (which ironically involve the cumulation of magical powers thru abstinence ... the saving of the vital fluids, as the general in Dr Strangelove kept going on about.

[Sargon The Grape]

The Greco-Romans were not liberals.  Their tolerance of variant-sex activity didn't come from liberalism, but from their mythology.  In their mythology, the ability to do anything you wanted to whoever you wanted was an expression of power ... ultimately divine power as demigods in the case of the upper class.  For example nudity ... the Emperor was shown nude on statues meant to convey his divinity, not his humanity.  Statues of gods in general might expose more of the body than would be considered appropriate for mere humans .. as well as display a superhuman male or female physique.  This was apparent on the coinage also ... originally only gods appeared on coins ... it was Alexander who started the trend toward personal divinization ... which reached its apotheosis with Augustus.  So sex was only limited by hubris ... too much of anything (nothing in excess) was considered bad ... men in particular had public duties that needed attending to.  Same thing with wine or drug consumption ... in moderation it was OK.  This is why moderate pederastry in particular was tolerated.  Women were devalued by both societies, in spite of goddess worship ... goddess worship being second class worship.  The problem with male on male sexuality was ... who would be bottom.  It wasn't the gay sex that was opposed ... but it was inappropriate for any man to be a bottom.  This is in societies where casual sex with male and female slaves, by both master and mistress was routine.  The privacy of the home and the devaluation of women, meant that female on female sex wasn't even noticed ... both were bottoms as far as the men were concerned.  Similarly the older male on younger male pattern ... this had to stop when the younger male got older, because otherwise the power problem reared its ugly head.  And women did know about sex aids, they have been seen on the pottery, not just the hetairai at the symposia.  War was of course sexual, since it was the main source of slaves ... and in iconography the conquered country was depicted as a foreign woman about to be raped.  The conquered men were depicted as wounded and dying ... or supplicating for their lives.

So basically a power relationship thing ... if this developed from Greco-Roman society.  Jewish society on the other hand was more liberal, but still allowed certain abuses per the OT.  IMHO ... like part of Christianity being developed from the East ... I think the puritanism against sex was driven by fear of STM ... which was legitimate ... and by ascetic practices from India (which ironically involve the cumulation of magical powers thru abstinence ... the saving of the vital fluids, as the general in Dr Strangelove kept going on about.

Indeed. A lot of people forget that homosexual behavior in ancient times generally wasn't done from a sense of liberalism.

I think that, at least in the case of the Abrahamic religions, there seems to be an emphasis upon doing only that which is necessary in this life and reserving pleasure for the next life. Since homosexual sex has no productive function at all (from the standpoint of producing offspring), it seems to me they would naturally want to discourage it.

[Baruch]

Not just discourage homosexuality, but sex for any reason other than procreation.  In Medieval Jewish law, a guy has to make out with his wife, using a sheet to keep contact to a minimum, with a hole in the middle to do the deed!  The problem with puritans, is they are afraid someone, somewhere, is having fun.  Kabbalah is different, sex between husband and wife is encouraged, particularly on Shabbat, because that is the same time every week that G-d is making out with Shekhinah.

[aitm]

I have often thought about that myself and came to a conclusion that perhaps there is a far simpler more obvious answer. Perhaps someone in a position of power or importance had a gay son (I don't think a gay daughter would have bothered anyone as they can still produce a child). Now even today many men view their "legacy" as the children and grandchildren they have to carry on title or position that they worked hard to get. To have a son,  the only heir apparent, get smittened by the evil gayz would be enough to start making laws to get rid of them. Over a few centuries I am sure many kings and the what-nots in every region could come to the conclusion that gays were evil.

[drunkenshoe]

The privacy of the home and the devaluation of women, meant that female on female sex wasn't even noticed ...

Not unnoticed. But simply not taken 'seriously', because it didn't threaten the patriarchal system.

And when it started to 'threaten' things a bit, that's when lesbians and bisexual women were even outlawed from homosexuality. There is still an understanding in the world that holds the belief of lesbians are different than homosexuals and that it is a specific form of 'perversity' different than male homosexuality. This is a result of the oppressive heteronormative understanding that the 'homosexual' female is trying to fill a heterosexual male norm or role. Because in order to humans have sex, there should be penetration by a penis.  And of course they are the women alluring the ones were to be good mothers and wives to men. In short, they just desire to be heterosexual males.

In Ottoman Empire, lesbian women showed their status by wearing same clothes or doing their headdress the same. Woman's duty is to be virtuous and bear children. As long as she provides this, marries as a virgin and not let any penis in her, it was OK. Female worthiness measured by the sex she had/has with het men. Her maidenhead is borrowed from her husband. So was/is she. 

Apart from that, there are plenty of evidence ignored that among palace artists, miniature painters, poets and writers there are homosexual lovers and that they were tolerated in Ottoman Empire. One of my professors wrote a fiction about it, however knowing her sources and her, she basically implied a relationship between a miniature painter and one of the sultans.

Another example, Rumi and his lover and the famous story is sad. And it's a gay love story.

Similarly the older male on younger male pattern ... this had to stop when the younger male got older, because otherwise the power problem reared its ugly head. 

That's too much from 'noble class' and the empire perspective. The class that can hold a pen. Powerful males only. That's a minority.



Homosexuality with both genders have become a real problem by Vatican becoming...well Vatican and after that Modernism. Cities, social orders, labels. Nuclear family. National armies. 

Today, there are homosexual islamic groups.

Basically, for a long time now, homosexuality in general has been seen as not 'beneficial' to the society, and it is thought to be uncontrollable. Humans are 'supposed' to get married an breed. States -any kind of- need registered families; taxes, soldiers and certain norms to define a system of two black and white genders to 'turn the wheel'.

[GSOgymrat]

As Tomfoolery mentioned, one factor is the nature of disgust. Most heterosexual men find sex between men to some degree disgusting and people often perceive that if something is disgusting then it must be inherently wrong, e.g. the gods don't like it, it is unnatural, unhealthy or immoral. This is one reason why for some people acceptance of homosexuality is a measure of moral attitudes because if one can't recognize something as "unnatural" as homosexuality is wrong then what other kinds of moral mistakes will he or she make.

[drunkenshoe]

Not just discourage homosexuality, but sex for any reason other than procreation. 

This first and then some.

[drunkenshoe]

As Tomfoolery mentioned, one factor is the nature of disgust. Most heterosexual men find sex between men to some degree disgusting and people often perceive that if something is disgusting then it must be inherently wrong, e.g. the gods don't like it, it is unnatural, unhealthy or immoral. This is one reason why for some people acceptance of homosexuality is a measure of moral attitudes because if one can't recognize something as "unnatural" as homosexuality is wrong then what other kinds of moral mistakes will he or she make.

But that depends on what people see while they grow up. It's not natural, it is inflicted. And so it is pretty new compared to human history.

[GSOgymrat]

But that depends on what people see while they grow up. It's not natural, it is inflicted. And so it is pretty new compared to human history.

So homosexuality is learned behavior? If people were exposed to homosexual sex growing up then more people would be homosexual?

[Munch]

But that depends on what people see while they grow up. It's not natural, it is inflicted. And so it is pretty new compared to human history.

I don't get that, are you saying homosexuality isn't natural but inflicted, or that the mentality of homophobes is what is unnatural and inflicted?

[drunkenshoe]

So homosexuality is learned behavior? If people were exposed to homosexual sex growing up then more people would be homosexual?

No, I meant being 'disgusted' by it is. Especially in a collective sense. It's a trait for being included in a community too.

If you tell children it is just a relationship they will see it that way. If you raise children with 'it's disgusting and unnatural' and more they will see it that way.

Considering a big majority of the world is raised that way and brainwashed that it is something 'disgusting and unnatural', it is inflicted MORE than felt. And that mostly happened with Abrahamic religions and modernism. So it is pretty 'new' compared to our 'history' actually. That's what I mean. 

[TomFoolery]

So homosexuality is learned behavior? If people were exposed to homosexual sex growing up then more people would be homosexual?

I don't think she was saying homosexuality is learned, but rather opinions about homosexuality are.