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

[drunkenshoe]

drunkenshoe ... you use big words ... and you are a scholar!

Big words? What are those?

[Sal1981]

Big words? What are those?

Like these?

*snort*

[Baruch]

baronronvort ... also in Iran, they have sanctified male/male relationships, by forcing the bottom partner to get a sex change, and then have them legally marry.  This is of course exactly the opposite of what most gay men want for themselves.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

I think Pat Robertson explained it as clear as possible. .YOU'RE GOING TO FORCE US ALL TO LIKE ANAL SEX! as opposed to just saying "ouch...that hurts."

[dylanb1121]

I used to think gay was weird , I can careless now. If your gay , good for you- enjoy your body. No gays have an agenda to turn everyone gone so being anti-homosexual is pretty silly to me.

[Ace101]

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.

I had a good article on this; I'll find it later if I can, but here it is in summary.

In general cultures or religions which are war-like are more more homophobic than cultures in which war and death is less common. Saying "religions" as a whole are homophobic isn't totally true - I don't think Buddhists have a huge reputation for being homophobes for example. it's specific religions, particularily ones invented by authoritarian, war-centric cultures.

This doesn't just apply to religions like Christianity and Islam; some cultures which are or were homphobic include the Mongols (under Ghengis Khan), the Aztec Indians, and modern day North Korea. Even when there are no similar religious or ethnic ties - the warlike nature of the culture seems to be the one thing they have in common - for example the Aztec Indians brutally executed homosexuals, while more peaceful Native American tribes were less homophobic.

I believe the cultural attitude develops from the fact that life expectancy was low and death rates were high due to their authoritarian and warlike nature, so these cultures placed more emphasis on the importance of procreation (believing therefore that gays were harmful to society due to their inability to procreate).

It also may have had to do with the fact that since they emphasis male strength and ferocity in war as being highly desired traits, they looked down on gays (gay men especially) due to stereotypes about them being effeminate (I believe this is also the reason why these cultures were more oppressive of women; since men were highly valued for their strength and combat ability, women were viewed as "weaker" and inferior).

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

Keep in mind the Aztecs were very homophobic

The penalties for male homosexual intercourse were severe. Mexica law punished sodomy with the gallows, impalement for the active homosexual, extraction of the entrails through the anal orifice for the passive homosexual, and death by garrote for the lesbians.[16] In Tenochtitlan, they hanged homosexuals. In nearby Texcoco, the active partner was "bound to a stake, completely covered with ashes and so left to die; the entrails of the passive agent were drawn out through his anus, he was then covered with ashes, and wood being added, the pile was ignited."[14]

[Baruch]

Aztecs .. the penalty for alcohol intoxication ... except for medicine or the elderly ... was death.  The war on drugs in America, starts there.  It was the trick of one god (Tezcatlipoca) against Quetzalcoatle ... that led to his banishment ... that set up the mistaken scenario that Cortez was the return of Quetzalcoatle.

The word "virtue" comes from "virtus" which is the Latin word for the ability of a man to father a child thru a woman ... whether the sex was consensual or not ... because this world also extends to the role of the Roman male (originally a cattle thief, rapist and murderer) as a warrior ... because raping captured people, male and female, was an expected part of that activity.

[drunkenshoe]

Aztecs .. the penalty for alcohol intoxication ... except for medicine or the elderly ... was death. 

In most ancient pagan societies, 'drunkness' or the status of being 'high' was seen as a 'tool' or 'power' to reach gods or some divine status in rituals, so they were defined as dangerous in ordinary people's hands. Something 'sacred' that can only be used by certain people. (Like the Middle Age and Early Modern age clergy saw Latin as the only suitable language for god and themselves to use it, but dangerous in ordinary people's hands. Not a good example, but root is the same.)

So the idea of banning alcoholic drinks in those societies is not the same with ours today. It's also an evolved process like most other things. People have made alcoholic drinks in their kitchen for a looong time, we still do not know how old really it is. In Anatolia we have many names for it.

For example, Romans banned the mushrooms or any other same kind of substance used in rituals by the 'primitive' tribes they invaded and slaved and forced them to use wine in their rituals and then banned them alltogether eventually, because they thought it cannot be controlled.

Most bans came with industrialisation and modernism, with growing demographic and its influence on social life, because there wasn't any means to control the production or the consumption of it while there was too much money to make, too many things to control. Modern state is just 200 years old. That's very young. It's almost like these subtsances -in general- have just been started to be made beneficial for the societies developed enough to benefit from it in every way.

Also, bad absinth from those times gave us a few good artists and many mentally unstable people. We call most of them 'genius' today.

The idea is closely connected with 'purity'. (So comes any kind of puritans, puritanism, purification of language, purification of soul, body...my ass...etc) Many other things. Banning intoxicating substances evolved to be connected to this idea of 'purity' with evolution of abrahamic religions. Same with other drinks and foods. Anthropologically, the isssues connected with purity is based on religion. (Mary Douglass, if memory serves right.)

After every plague, societies banished certain minorities they thought were 'impure'. Jews suffered from that a lot in Europe's history. Undesired people... Guess which ones. They also made a law that certain occupations they thought were 'impure' were to be founded outside of cities. They thought plague was a result of impurity of their souls. They tortured (purified) infidels with fire or drowned them in water. But this is not just about cleanliness. It's about 'purity' according to the specific religion. For example in Spain -don't remember which king or cardinal or who- declared christians are not to wash themselves or have a bath because it destroyed their pruity. Because muslims did. It was a muslim trait. In Early Modern period Spain and 'Holland' are two extreme ends of this.

Another reason for baths being closed in Europe is that it encouraged 'immorality';homosexuality and probably all kinds of sex. And they were dirty. Dirty-immoral-sex-nudity...etc.

...because this world also extends to the role of the Roman male (originally a cattle thief, rapist and murderer) as a warrior ... because raping captured people, male and female, was an expected part of that activity. ...

That is called 'sexual imperialism'. Is that one of those big words you were talking about? Going on exactly the same today as you implied.

At most cases there is no accusation, let alone some prosecution. But that depends on how politically powerful the country of the soliders are. It's usually very easy to prevent it from going out.

For example, American troops raping children in Colombia and filming it. Or systematic rape of Boshnak women by Serbian soldiers. Two examples comes to my mind that happened recently. Many others we know in history. And probably a lot will come up in the future from Afghanistan and Irak. 

The 'victorious' do not see the other side as human at most times. And it is often thought to be based on racist and sexist rage.

[I just wonder if this is also related to the rape issues in male-female armies around the world. Hmmm.]

[Baruch]

drunkenshoe ... I can tell by your responses you are an edumacated person ;-)  Yes, in warfare, it is necessary to dehumanize the soldier, so that they can do inhuman things both to enemy soldiers, but also to enemy civilians ... but in a hierarchically controlled manner.  Technically, some things are by statute, not to be done, or they are punishable under military law.  Of course like all laws, this is observed in the breach.  Today the greatest risk is to female soldiers is from their own male comrades ... the male soldiers are all keyed up to do some war raping ... and their female comrades are close to hand ;-(

St Patrick was a big BO guy ... he said one couldn't be a saint, if one had bathed even once ;-)  The Irish were fanatics ... being a believer isn't enough, you have to try to be a blarney saint!  The Culdee priests slept on a rock for a pillow ... if it was good enough for Jacob, it was good enough for them.  I am not into ascetic stuff myself.

[Munch]

I think that the hatred towards homosexuals and homosexuality was first created because by definition homosexuality does not produce babies, and back in those days there was something like a 1 in 5 chance of a baby dying before it reaches sexual maturity, those chances were probably even worse for the desert nomads who created the hatred compared to the greeks since the greeks atleast had city states, running water, markets, etc all the things that make human survival more likely.  So the ancient jews probably saw homosexuality as a threat to the propagation of their tribes.  As far as being disgusted by homosexuality I'm almost certain that that is a learned behavior, I know several people who can't stand the sight of 2 men fucking, or even kissing in some instances, yet they have almost no problem watching someone being beheaded, I used to have a friend that I watched those videos with who had almost no problem watching things like The Dagestan Beheading Massacre, or 2 guys 1 hammer, but yet he refused to watch broke back mountain.

My brothers the same, and while he isn't in any way homophobic, being liberal minded, has gay friends and support gay marriage, he use to (before he became a dad) was video like mans head being run over by a steam roller, or body mutilation on banned videos, but just bringing up brokeback mountain which my mum saw and loved, my brother winced at watching it, even calling it shit when he hadn't even seen it.

There is an outright psychological dissonance with a lot of people in this, even if they know gay people deserve the same rights as others and support it, they still get effected psychologically when seeing two men fuck, not something that effects me when I accidentally clicks on a lesbian porn video on porn hub.

[doorknob]

It's just like any other taught prejudice. Any thing that is not like us is undesirable mentality. True shame really there use to be a pride in being well rounded by studying and admiring the customs of other cultures. Now it seems like anything that detracts from the 'american" way is a crime. It's the same I feel with gay.IN religion It is viewed as being unnatural or not as nature intended and therefore an abomination(i.e. not like us). Too bad for them(i.e. homophobes) that there are now many examples of homosexuality in (nature)animals including monkeys as an example.

[Munch]

It's just like any other taught prejudice. Any thing that is not like us is undesirable mentality. True shame really there use to be a pride in being well rounded by studying and admiring the customs of other cultures. Now it seems like anything that detracts from the 'american" way is a crime. It's the same I feel with gay.IN religion It is viewed as being unnatural or not as nature intended and therefore an abomination(i.e. not like us). Too bad for them(i.e. homophobes) that there are now many examples of homosexuality in (nature)animals including monkeys as an example.

Oh speaking of which, Bill Nye just recently talked about his thoughts on the subject.
https://youtube.com/index?&desktop_uri=%2F#/watch?v=ohFOHvcTC6I

[Baruch]

homo-phobia.  Any kind of phobia, is an irrational and defective mental/emotional phenomenon.  If one is rational and mentally/emotionally balanced, I don't think one can be homophobic.  This is not the same as preference ... personally I am much more tolerant of two women going at it, or a man and a woman, than two men ... but I don't see any need to disapprove of anyone because of my preference.  There are forms of sex that I would be intolerant of ... just push my limits far enough.  Everyone has phobias, even gay people.

[Solitary]

Actually some women do have balls. What I want to know is why heterosexuality is not icky, it sure seems to be to me if it is done right. 

[Baruch]

Very good question, Solitary.  Certainly in some respects, particularly under the observation of puritans .. heterodox is icky ... and they would prefer that babies come about some other way, or that there simply aren't any more babies at all.  And part of that is related to misogyny.  Girls are icky .. but not boys ;-)  This is why in orthodox Judaism, a woman can't handle a Torah scroll ... because you never know when she will become ritually impure when she periods.  Making a $40,000 heirloom ritually impure ... is serious business ;-)