Why has religion been so strongly against homosexuality throughout history?

Why has religion been so strongly against homosexuality throughout history?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodom_and_Gomorrah
pastebin.com/Yj53GrxN
youtube.com/watch?v=6iHZi-z7H4o
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Which one?

Because homosexuality is an abomination

Amen

Almost all of them.

Religion? Pretty much most civilized societies in most levels have been, check your facts you biased mongrel.

Let's hypothetically say it is. So what?

If you're talking about Christians, not actually.

During the earlier years of Christianity, there's a thing called "brother making", pretty much a form of marriage for homosexual couples.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodom_and_Gomorrah

It's different.

Name some

One of the viewpoints i've been taught was that it wasn't necessarily viewed as completely abhorrent in some civilizations, but was still publicly deemed immoral due to the fact it wasn't great for the propagation and sustainment of a society.

Different reasons depending on the religion. Sometimes they didn't really care depending on the circumstances, like the Hindus and Greeks, and they didn't really think of fucking another guy as 'homosexuality', as we know it today. But still, the question is too general to answer in a useful manner.

What's curious to me is that lesbian sex is almost never mentioned historically. When talking about same-sex relations further than like 200 years ago it's nearly non-existent.

>No sex
>No romantic implication
>But if we stretch it out really really far we can say fag marriage is an old tradition that society needs back
Homos are insufferable

can homosexuals make babies? If you tell people they are required to only fuck the opposite sex, then you won't have to worry about population dwindling as much. Same thing with how pigs and "dirty animals" are banned for being prone to causing disease and death. A Mormon family is expected to have at least 5 children, meaning a much larger growth of potential Mormons.

Religious rules usually have practical functions, though they may look outdated nowadays. When it comes to male homosexuality, the reason is pretty simple: men shouldn't "waste" their "seed". If you can use your "seed" to increase the clan's numbers, but prefer to "waste" it around, you're being disloyal to your clan. Same goes for sodomy.

I'm not really that knowledgeable about religion but isn't the premise of your question wrong? Only the Abrahamic relgions are against homosexuality I think. Hinduism, Buddhism, and other major non-Abrahamic relgions dont condemn it.

Homosexuality is unusual; non-conforming to gender roles.

1) "Unusual" leads to xenophobia. People used to be poor and dumb in a lot of places for a long time. Poor and dumb people are particularly susceptible to being suspicious of anything strange.

2) Large religions were heavily institutionalized and conservative. Gotta have power over them peasants and keep them under control. No deviation from your role in society allowed.

During early days of Christianity it wasn't as big and as institutionalized. It was more like a hippy movement, free love for everybody.

Because Hinduism and Buddhism weren't "centralized" and used to control people. It was more like a social class. You could have your own god and your own way to worship Buddha in each town.

Which ones?

There were plenty of religions which did not condemn homosexuality, they didn't survive because they failed to procreate.

>Make broad accusations against religion
>Doesn't even specify which ones
>Tee hee I mean just the Abrahamic religions

Fuck you

Homosexuality was never a huge problem for procreation.

This should answer your questions.

Also, religions were often simply used to justify preexisting customs and social structures. So, basically, any reason why people might hate the gays can be applied to religion this way.

My inclination is that when most people see a heterosexual couple holding hands or kissing it gives you a "aww that's cute" sort of feeling, whereas when they see homosexuals doing the same it produces an unfavorable reaction. If true, this indicates some biological bias against it, which is similar to other instinctive reactions most people have to things, such as instinctively feeling good about acts of altruism and instinctively reacting against acts of malice.

It's gross, nothing more to it than people institutionalizing taboos. They're always be the butt of jokes because of that too, a society might be tolerant of it, but most straight people innately find it off-putting.

> aww that's cute
I was disgusted no matter of homo or hetero it was.

Abrahamic religions are the ones mainly against it. Indo-European warriors in the bronze age and up to the iron age commonly had partnerships with a fellow soldier that included sex. The best evidence is seen chariot pairs is Celtic forces. In Celtic society, it wasn't uncommon for men to prefer this relationship and leave sex with women for procreation.

You're disgusted when you see a heterosexual couple holding hands? the fuck kinda asshole are you?

Homosexuality is anathema to the concept of the family unit and gender identities. It has a cancerous effect on the very foundations of patriarchal society, and the church as an inherently conservative institution therefore opposes it

>If you even look at a woman lustfully it's a sin
>free love

Fucking hell you're retarded, kill yourself fag.

Because male pair-bonding can destroy conventional societies on any number of levels and religions generally play a role in maintaining societies. Nobody gives a shit about powerful men having fuccbois on the side because there are minimal social implications and nobody gives a shit about lesbians because it's not like they can avoid getting married and pregnant anyway.

Not feeling empathy because you can't relate to someone different and xenophobia are really closely connected.

You are just stating the taboo. As points out, it is not an universal taboo across cultures and time. OP is asking why that is.

>hasn't read New Testament

>everything people do is biological

All people aside from retards and perverts also tend to hold their stool and go to the toilet instead of releasing a pile of shit on the spot in their pants whenever they feel like it. It's not biological, it's learned behavior.

Heterosexuality and reproduction purposes is the only reason why we haven't exterminated all women yet. Once sex is removed from equation they have no worth.

Whenever atheists use the word religion that's always what they mean

Learning is biological

What like Corinthians 6:9

Or Matthew 5:28?

learning how to tickle the prostate with a dick is biological

Do you think atheists from Asian society or Muslim ones that won't kill them are as cringe worthy as ex Christians?

I'd reccomend you do read
Men who fuck men,women who fuck women, drunkards, fornicators, people who partake in orgies, thieves, idolaters, those prone to wrath, etc. are pretty explicitly stated to be damned and St. Paul outlines guidelines for excommunicating people (the incestuous man)

There is nothing cringe worthy at being an atheist.

Probably not
It's mostly Americans from evangelical households
European atheists for instance just don't care

Quoting passages from the Bible is gay. You have just contradicted yourself.

Inherently no, but then you get the shitters that build atheist churches and come to the conclusion that they "FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE" and shit like that

The "family unit" as we know it is a modern construct. Men had multiple wives (or vice versa is some select cultures like in Tibet), concubines, etc. I don't see how homosexuality goes against a patriarchal society, it actually supports a male/soldier culture, seen by pre-christian indo-europeans.

Meanwhile Jesus himself said that you should love everybody, that God forgives thieves and those prone to wrath and etc. and he loves them too. It's up to interpretation at best.

St. Paul never says he doesn't either
Christ says that they'll go to hell if unrepentant and St. Paul in the very next letter to the same church instructs them on letting the excommunicated man back in because he repented from his incest. All St. Paul's "condemnations" are just telling Christians who are fucking up to stop and correct their errors. Christ also said to "sin no more"

Jesus also left it up to Peter as the head of the Apostles to decide.

>What you bind on Earth shall be bound in heaven

And vice versa

Eh

This too. I think the bible is written to fully express God the best that a book can. Each individual piece is true (in context of course) while also being true as a whole. I think the bible is meant to show the intense wrath that God is capable of while also showing his boundless love and grace

>Homosexuality is anathema to the concept of the family unit and gender identities
2 fallacies are in this statement

>Family unit and Gender identities have been static, resembling modern ones.
And
>Homosexuality as a third sex complete with marriage. Like modern homofaggotry

Historically, plenty of societies saw Homoshit as either a sexual fetish or a male friendship upgrade. You still had to marry for a whole lot of reasons. Cultural duty, familial duties, etc.

>patriarchal society
Yeah, you'd have to explain why Homoshit happened and was a non-issue to the likes of the Greeks and the Chinese. Very patriarchal those two.

>Chinks
>Human

That's literally manipulating impressionable people using the Good Cop Bad Cop trick. It has many names in history.

It's not manipulation though. It's just showing you what happens if you choose to not accept God's grace. It's very clear and straightforward, the exact opposite of manipulation

Oh look its the

>I have no knowledge so I must shitpost post

Interrogation can also be very clear and straightforward: you don't say what you're asked - you get hit.

To that end everyone should be welcome in the church, yes. Nutbags like Steven Anderson who want to kill all gay people definitely have the wrong idea but just as well, the message explicitly isn't "do whatever you want". When Jesus went among the prostitutes and deviants he said "go, and sin no more".

In other words, you can be a gay christian, but you can't be having sex with men. You're just going to have to repress that.

>feigning this much ignorance
Islam

It makes me sad that he takes his hatred for gays to such an extreme level, though I do understand his anger and that fact that homosexuality is very sinful. He's very on point about everything else I've heard him talk about in my opinion, but his outspokenness about his extreme hatred for homosexuality turns people off from hearing him discuss the bible very knowledgably. I can understand not wanting unrepentant homosexuals who make no effort to change into the church, but wishing death on someone is taking it too far in my opinion. Hate the sin, but pray for the sinner, even if you have to cut yourself off from them

>Why has society been so strongly against homosexuality throughout history

Fixed. Religion is society.

It's more like this

Someone gives you a gift with the condition that you must acknowledge that they gave you that gift in order to keep it. If you choose not to then you don't get to keep it

This. Wish the old times were back

> If you choose not to then you don't get to keep it.
And then you get hit. Take the damn gift!

That's not "almost all religions"

Why wouldn't you take the gift of eternal bliss? Is that really so cruel of God to give you the choice between eternal bliss and eternal suffering? God is offering himself to you forever. You can choose not to have him but a life cut off from a loving God is suffering. He's told us this. Why would you complain about not having compassion and love in your life if you knowingly rejected it?

Pls take your life-denying death cult somewhere else.

Great response...how exactly is it life-denying? Do you just spout memes when you don't have an answer?

>being this autistic
Can't you infer from the context of this thread that OP meant religions prominent in medieval and modern European history? Namely, Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Protestantism and (mostly by contact) Islam.

The manipulators are the people offering the idea. The idea of the God has nothing wrong with it.

I didn't say everything people do is biological, I postulated that in this instance the near universal disapproval of homosexuality in laws and social customs until very recently may originate in biological tendencies.

people say this is an abrahamic issue, but that's plainly false. Homosexuality is taboo or outright scorned in Hindu, Sikh, Zoroastrian, Shinto, Bhuddist, etc. cultures among others.

it seems the historical examples of social approval of homosexuality are the exception to the rule, and/or potentially false.

This is a shit thread anyway began by a vague statement.

>Homosexuality is taboo or outright scorned in Hindu, Sikh, Zoroastrian, Shinto, Bhuddist, etc. cultures among others.
>Hindu
>Sikh
>Zoroastrian
>Shinto
>Buddhism.
Alright then. Burden is on you to specify how these thought Homoniggery is Taboo.

Especially in Hinduism's case. That religion is balkanized as fuck.

Probably because women aren't as sexual as men. So the prevalence of it wouldn't be as easily known.

maybe because it's not possible for lesbians to have sex.

I'm drunk as shit and you're all faggots

no expert on the matter, but for starters homosexuals are widely discriminated against in India and although there is a hindu concept of a "third gender" it's not exactly a celebrated aspect of hinduism.

It hasn't. Abrahamic religion has. No one knows why.

My edgy hardcore atheist self from three years ago would say that opposing things like homosexuality is basically a religion's way of growing itself; in other words, religions that advocate for reproduction (be fruitful and multiply), as well as disapprove of things that limit reproduction (abortion, homosexuality, masturbation) tend to be more popular for fairly obvious reasons. My agnostic self now doesn't give a shit

Because it's the church of the devil and they hate every trait of mankind.

pastebin.com/Yj53GrxN

The east largely was very mixed about it but the west was against it, in the most simplest sense, because early-until-modern society support innate purposes to things. This is how homosexuality as disordered came about.

Of course there is possibly more going on but that's the common intellectual basis.

For people saying that it's because homosexuals don't produce offspring, it's very unlikely that would be the cause, for two reasons:

1) In cultures where homosexual relations were not oppressed homosexuals often did take wives/husbands and produce offspring anyway.
2) Even in the most liberal contemporary countries where social discrimination against homosexuals is low, where homosexuals are given full and equal rights, and where homosexuals can live open and full lives, the number of people who are homosexual is still a tiny percentage of the population, usually around 1% +- 0.5%

In other words, the rise in rate of reproduction that would be a consequence of persecution of homosexuals, would be so small (close to zero) as to be unnoticeable and immaterial.

>GOD DOESNT WANT ME TO STICK MY PEEPEE IN THINGS! HE'S A BIG MEANIE!!

>Great response...how exactly is it life-denying?
Because everything comes down to the afterlife. It doesn't matter if you're the mightiest leader of men that your people has ever produced or a dim-witted, celibate coward whose greatest achievement is keeping the slugs off of his cabbages; if you jump through the right hoops (virtually all of which involve restrictions on worldly acts) you both end up in paradise while someone that doesn't jump through those hoops, no matter the impact of their physical existence, is essentially a loser in the long run. It's a surgical denial of the will to power in favor of submission to a higher power - and His worldly servants, of course

>Do you just spout memes when you don't have an answer?
This is literally my second post in the thread and my first was almost two hours ago.

Where do I say that?

>Let's lie about what he says, maybe people will not check out!

pure speculation, but in a tribe of 100 people if one of them happens to be healthy but doesn't procreate that could be problematic for the survival of the tribe. I could see how such a situation would create social pressure to conform.

So because there's even more life than just the very short time we have here on Earth that makes Christianity life-denying?...Because more value is placed on benefitting others and being connected with the entity that gave you everything in life, it's life-denying? It seems like thinking that there's only 80 years on earth before it all ends and spending your life indulging in hedonistic pleasure such as collecting as much money as you can and hollow selfishness would be more life-denying

> that could be problematic
There is literally no difference. Other people could procreate a little more and all main resources are shared between tribe members anyway. Basically chief would got one more son instead of homo Joe and thats it

Where did I say that?

>let's lie about what he says, maybe it will discredit the point he was making which obviously wasn't a literal quote from what I wrote

Which ones?
There's nothing against it in Shinto for example. Similarly with many native american religions.

If they pressure the homosexuals into heterosexual marriage, the population will spread faster. Thus, the religion also spreads faster.

Maybe he's asexual.

when you start asking morally relative questions like that, you should really just kill yourself, because you've admitted that there is no meaning to life, be it yours or anyone elses.

disregarding all this, do you really have to think about why something "abominable" is bad? it's a detriment to individual and public health, and so, every society that isn't lead by namby pamby relativist faggots have, drawn, quartered, tarred and feathered the cock-mongling wretches and for good reason.

youtube.com/watch?v=6iHZi-z7H4o

It's simple, because two men cannot have children. The main religions look down on having sex for any other cause than to make children, and a homosexual couple cannot do that.

Therefore, in a religious sense, being a good person and being a homosexual cannot go hand in hand.

Uh... what?

Nope.avi
Being gay was a-ok before all the crazed paranoid religious heads started banning it in medieval times.

wtf are you talking about

I just stated a fact, that's all. You sounded like a triggered SJW, pham.

You forgot to mention that the whole reason behind this is the proliferation of the faith meme through the manufacturing of progeny.

If you can indoctrinate more vulnerable toddlers, you can assure the continued existence of your doctrinal exemption from hell, taxes, and whatever other power plays the faith culture makes in the mean time.

Well that's completely inaccurate.