Is all homophobia rooted with religious beliefs

[pinkocommie]

That is one ugly baby daddy.

[Kylyssa]

I think that very, very few homophobes are just naturally born homophobes.  I don't think most were born that way.  I think religion plays a huge role, both in supporting outdated gender roles and in demonizing same sex activity.  Ask the approximately 400,000 LBGTQ teens homeless in America if religion had anything to do with it.

[GAYtheist]

I think, even subconsciously, that religion has a major part in homophobia. Ask a homophobe anything as to why he hates gay people on a scientific level, and see what they respond. Point out that nearly all forms of mammalian life, including humans, have homosexuality in the species. I've usually gotten either the "We're smarter than animals" <No, we are animals, just with a higher intelligence level> Or It's in the bible <Who gives a flying fuck?> I have never, EVER, heard a logical reason to support homophobia, nor do I think I ever will. If I may ask a question that is kinda connected to this thread, If there was no religion, would there be homophobia?

[Tank]

I think, even subconsciously, that religion has a major part in homophobia. Ask a homophobe anything as to why he hates gay people on a scientific level, and see what they respond. Point out that nearly all forms of mammalian life, including humans, have homosexuality in the species. I've usually gotten either the "We're smarter than animals" <No, we are animals, just with a higher intelligence level> Or It's in the bible <Who gives a flying fuck?> I have never, EVER, heard a logical reason to support homophobia, nor do I think I ever will. If I may ask a question that is kinda connected to this thread, If there was no religion, would there be homophobia?

I would say an unmitigated yes, there are stupid people who like to pick on other people just because they are different, that happens with or without religion.

[KebertX]

These days it seems most Homophobia is the result of being raised with the false concept that it's immoral to be Gay. Homosexuality is, in fact, not hurting anything (Well, not any more than Heterosexuality...).  That's why I can't stand religious Dogma. It insists that there are moral issues in things that have nothing to do with morality (and ignores moral issues with an invisible megalomaniac slaughtering millions of people).

It's 2010, people should be more tolerant than that by now. But a few Thousand years ago, when they were making this shit up, people must have had some reason to be so adamant against homosexuality.  I have a few hypotheses:

1) Some ancient King, or Emperor decided that Gay Sex was gross, and put out some sort of decree to banish it, and that law ended up in the bible
2) The people who wrote the bible wanted to control people by restricting sexual pleasure in as many ways they could.
3) Some giant dude actually came out of the sky and yelled, "NO MORE BUTT-SECKS!" (Lol, then he created the Loch-Ness Monster and flew away on a Flying Saucer)
4) The church adopted the spiritual practice of inhibiting sexual desires, and it was decided that people should only have sex in order to have children. Therefore, homosexuality had to go.

The ancient Greeks actually had a nice belief about homosexuality. Every person was originally 2 people, with equal masculine and feminine attributes. And when the gods put them on earth, they split their soul in two. And when you found the other half of yourself, you fell in love because your soul was finally complete. If a guy was gay, it only meant he was more masculine, because BOTH halves of his soul were male.

Not all religious people are homophobic, but most homophobic people are religious.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I think homophobia has dual roots:

1) Roughly 90% of all humans are not gay

2) Humans excel in the creation of in- and out-groups.

Whether religion created homophobia or merely capitalizes on it is up in the air.

[The Magic Pudding]

I have never, EVER, heard a logical reason to support homophobia, nor do I think I ever will.

Back in the sandal days, the population may have needed a boost, so they attempted to ban the bum.
This may not be very good logic.
If it is, in these days of overpopulation we could run a "be gay for the planet" campaign.

[Sophus]

Whether religion created homophobia or merely capitalizes on it is up in the air.

I think you're right that there would still be some group of hating people to find an excuse to be homophobic. On the other hand, without the particular Abrahamic religions would we see more cultures like the ancient Greeks? One has to wonder.

[Sophus]

Here's something that has been on my mind. Is part of the reason this is one of the last civil rights issues left to deal with in America (not that there aren't remains of racism and sexism I know) possibly due to the name Homophobia. To me it just reiterates the fact that they're creeped out by an idea and doesn't emphasize it as a prejudice because there's no "ism". I dunno... just throwing that out there.

[NothingSacred]

Here's something that has been on my mind. Is part of the reason this is one of the last civil rights issues left to deal with in America (not that there aren't remains of racism and sexism I know) possibly due to the name Homophobia. To me it just reiterates the fact that they're creeped out by an idea and doesn't emphasize it as a prejudice because there's no "ism". I dunno... just throwing that out there.

There is its just not widely used its called heterosexism it is the idea that heterosexuality is inherently better than homosexuality.

[karadan]

From my experience, it seems to be born from ignorance. Many seem to use the religion thing simply to shore up their own argument. They probably feel more comfortable knowing many other religious people feel the same way. It is simply a convenient way to be openly ignorant whilst having the backing of god.

[Tank]

I have never, EVER, heard a logical reason to support homophobia, nor do I think I ever will.

Back in the sandal days, the population may have needed a boost, so they attempted to ban the bum.
This may not be very good logic.
If it is, in these days of overpopulation we could run a "be gay for the planet" campaign.

The very thought crossed my mind. However have you considered male homosexuality is evolved to do just that? In the past before agriculture where our ancestors evolved there were limited food resources. I believe research has shown that the younger brothers in families tend to be homosexual ie the later sons in big families. One effect could be to put a negative feedback into reproductive capability. The other could be to reduce competitive tensions within the family. If homosexuality did not exist in the human species would that cause over population and/or rivalry that ultimately became a negative selection pressure. Is male homosexuality simply an evolutionary pressure release mechanism?

[The Magic Pudding]

The very thought crossed my mind. However have you considered male homosexuality is evolved to do just that? In the past before agriculture where our ancestors evolved there were limited food resources.

I'm no expert but I think evolution favours a high level of reproduction.
Famine war and disease does the job of maintaining equilibrium.
As far as I know that's how it works with other animals.

I believe research has shown that the younger brothers in families tend to be homosexual ie the later sons in big families.

I haven't heard that one.  Is that why they set them up with jobs in the clergy?
If reliable statistics did show this, I don't think I would conclude in was due to evolution.  
An effect of culture would seem a simpler solution.
As the youngest of three brothers, I have come to the unbiased conclusion that we younger brothers are brighter.
We can't rely on strength in our early years, so we become more thoughtful.

One effect could be to put a negative feedback into reproductive capability. The other could be to reduce competitive tensions within the family.

With high child mortality how would this feature turn on?
If the eldest son died the family would be left with reluctant reproducers.
Do older brothers smell scary?  If older brother dies would the younger one straighten up?
There are critters including fish who can change sex.
http://www.bio.davidson.edu/Courses/anp ... e/Rice.htm

Is male homosexuality simply an evolutionary pressure release mechanism?

Until recently I think war disease and famine has done that job.
If there was a designer this may be a good idea, but we frown as this kind of talk.
Evolution doesn’t care if famine is unpleasant.
Population pressure has at least in part, driven humans to colonise most of the earth.
Discomfort has motivated our success.

[Sophus]

male homosexual orientation in mammals is caused by sexual antagonistic selection. Sorry, but I can't write more on this at the moment.

[Tank]

Here is a good link to the younger sibling issue. http://www.narth.com/docs/domothers.html  I take your point about inter-tribal war and famine being responsible for more male deaths than other causes. These selection pressures would have selected for stronger and more adept males better able to cope with famine and battle, their sexuality would not have been selected for, so they may well have been more significant selection pressures. However that does not mean that there were not other selections pressures at work as well on a more subtle less obvious level. I agree with you that natural selection has no objective but that also means it can be wrong as well and lead to a whole entity that works well enough to survive. I don't know enough about this issue to defend an opinion. It was your comment about 'Lets have a gay world and stop reproducing to save the planet' just got me wondering if there were an associated selection pressure in over populated situations or large families. Your comment about 'What happens when the older more macho brother dies?' is quite true, what would happen? It would make an interesting study. Very much an unformed thought on my behalf thrown out there for scrutiny and considered comment.