Happy Atheist Forum

I'm not going to say that every person who is homophobic is religious. But in my experience a lot of homophobic people have had some sort of religious morality agenda to why they are against it.

But in saying that online I've noticed a few obnoxious person's who are homophobic and jsut plain gay hating for reasons other than religious beliefs. The main arguments are "it freaks me out" "the gays caused aids" "its against nature". Of course none of these arguments really point towards facts at all.

So even though these arguments may seem non-relgious, could they be rooted with religion or perhaps have some sort of influence taken from religion even though such individuals profess to be non-relgious?

Seems to be possible.  The culture that is our environment is awash in religious influence.

However, the religious influence on someone's homophobia  would seem difficult to show.

I just have a dinner with a friend , having some usual moral/gods discussion.
hes a atheist (maybe sometime a pastafarian), a practical man
and as a male , off course he like lesbians.
but when I ask if our country having a vote for gay marriage , will he vote "yes"
he told me he won't go to vote. no pro , nor con
he feels the man on man homosexuality just disgusted him. for no really clear reason.
my country dont have that many opposite voice against gay ppl. we just dont have a real law for them to marry each other.
I think if a human can born gay , off course we will have human born feel uncomfortable about homosexual.
its nothing religious, his gayphobia just becuz he got wired that way.
but again , for a world man can enjoy to having lesbians (vise versa) , support the gay marriage.

To disprove the question "Is all homophobia rooted with religious beliefs" one would have to find one example that was not rooted in religious beliefs. As homosexuality is a minority behaviour I would be very surprised if there have not been, or still are, societies that attempt to suppress the behaviour simply because it is considered 'different'. I can't think of a specific example but I would be surprised if there were not one.

It would appear that the dominant institutionalised superstitions (religions) all hold homosexuality to be a sin and as such allow those who follow these religions to 'look down on' and harass homosexuals. So I would agree that religious dogma facilitates and encourages anti-homosexual thoughts and feelings in the followers of said dogma. As humans are variable one would expect that some would take these feeling to extremes.

However, as religious books tend to codify the general morality of the time they are written it is possible that religion incorporated its anti-homosexual stance from the prevalent culture of the time. Once codified as dogma the views would have been reinforced. So the absolute root may not be religion, religions simply became the medium in which the meme of homophobia took root and grew.

Why the interest in the question?

I stumbled upon a study earlier that suggested sometimes it may be rooted in the person's own homosexual attraction:

Quote from: "From Pubmed.org"The authors investigated the role of homosexual arousal in exclusively heterosexual men who admitted negative affect toward homosexual individuals. Participants consisted of a group of homophobic men (n = 35) and a group of nonhomophobic men (n = 29); they were assigned to groups on the basis of their scores on the Index of Homophobia (W. W. Hudson & W. A. Ricketts, 1980). The men were exposed to sexually explicit erotic stimuli consisting of heterosexual, male homosexual, and lesbian videotapes, and changes in penile circumference were monitored. They also completed an Aggression Questionnaire (A. H. Buss & M. Perry, 1992). Both groups exhibited increases in penile circumference to the heterosexual and female homosexual videos. Only the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male homosexual stimuli. The groups did not differ in aggression. Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8772014 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8772014)

I like to call it the "He doth protest too much" phenomenon.

Ted Haggard - perfect example.  Great find though, bravo.

I think it is human nature to inherently find fault or to dislike those things we do not understand, or that do not meet our own standards for what is the "norm."

For instance, I find homosexual behavior "odd" because I do not participate in that behavior, however, since I have no religious dogma against homosexuality, I do not have a "reason" to try and eliminate it from society, or to vote against some law that might give those who do participate in the activity equal rights.

In short, I think that what one does in the privacy of one's own bedroom, regardless of how I "feel" about it, is NONE of my business.  I would respect religion a lot more if they spent their energy and money on social issues that really benefit society, rather than on issues that have NO benefit to society at all.  For example, I was shocked when I learned how much money was spent by the Religious Right in California to try and fight the legalization of marriage in that state, thinking that the money could have fed countless children, provided healthcare for these kids, or built how many homes for the homeless, just to name three things.

I know that the "Right" is totally against social programs that are paid for by the government, but I think this is a root problem for religions.  Social programs should be the domain of the religious if they truly follow the teachings of their Jesus, but instead, the "Right" wants to control government and neglect their social responsibility.  Again, this is just my humble opinion.

Quote from: "teifuani"I stumbled upon a study earlier that suggested sometimes it may be rooted in the person's own homosexual attraction:

Quote from: "From Pubmed.org"The authors investigated the role of homosexual arousal in exclusively heterosexual men who admitted negative affect toward homosexual individuals. Participants consisted of a group of homophobic men (n = 35) and a group of nonhomophobic men (n = 29); they were assigned to groups on the basis of their scores on the Index of Homophobia (W. W. Hudson & W. A. Ricketts, 1980). The men were exposed to sexually explicit erotic stimuli consisting of heterosexual, male homosexual, and lesbian videotapes, and changes in penile circumference were monitored. They also completed an Aggression Questionnaire (A. H. Buss & M. Perry, 1992). Both groups exhibited increases in penile circumference to the heterosexual and female homosexual videos. Only the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male homosexual stimuli. The groups did not differ in aggression. Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8772014 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8772014)

I like to call it the "He doth protest too much" phenomenon.

Thanks for sharing this, I want to do a little more research into the idea, but I can certainly see the point made.

Quote from: "From Pubmed.org"and changes in penile circumference were monitored.

Really?

Also, more likely in my opinion is that people who don't like gays simply use religion to validate their bias.

Quote from: "SSY"Also, more likely in my opinion is that people who don't like gays simply use religion to validate their bias.

I think this has a lot to do with it for those who are strongly against equal rights for gays...they just doing like the idea of two men together (man on man seems to bother Americans more than female on female...probably because we have made female female into a fantasy scenario).

When I was religious I was told to believe that sex before marriage was immoral and that god didn't like homosexuality and it was a sin too; but I didn't hate or try to deny the rights of those who had sex before marriage or of my gay friends.  Ultimately it's up to the person on if they are going to allow their religious influences to control how they treat others; I knew that being gay didn't make someone an evil person and made my religious views bend instead of my moral views.

Some people try to act "reasonable" by referencing the "research" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_ISIS_Survey) of clearly biased psychologists like Paul Cameron (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Cameron), which claims homosexuals have a lower life expectancy and tend to be pedophiles. Even though he's been proven to be sneaky, deceiving SOB (refer to first link   ) once those numbers are out there very few people care to research it and they go around quoting it like crazy. So this is one example of how people could become influenced by something other than openly religious BS.

It's people like Cameron who gives social science a bad image, especially psychology.  And no matter how many good scientists show the short comings and poor methods these people use there's still so many jackasses who will support their work and stick by them just because they share the same ideology.  I know that in Cameron's case the majority of the scientific community know he's a nut and a pimple on the ass of psychology and social science research.

I think a big part of homophobia stems from sexism ( which can often come from religion). Homosexuality challenges gender roles. As for lesbianism being considered less threatening I think that is because of hegemony. People are often more offended by " feminine" gay men than gay men who fit into the traditional male gender role. It seems like they are saying to themselves "Why would anyone stoop to be womanly? They need to be a real man.". Lesbianism can be sexualized by heterosexual men though so that's "ok".

A very good point.  Hadn't given that angle much thought.

Quote from: "NothingSacred"I think a big part of homophobia stems from sexism ( which can often come from religion). Homosexuality challenges gender roles. As for lesbianism being considered less threatening I think that is because of hegemony. People are often more offended by " feminine" gay men than gay men who fit into the traditional male gender role. It seems like they are saying to themselves "Why would anyone stoop to be womanly? They need to be a real man.". Lesbianism can be sexualized by heterosexual men though so that's "ok".

That is interesting. Perhaps Homophobia is Sexism's ugly bastard child. Let's ask Maury...

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi674.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fvv107%2Fmegs25%2Fmaury_povich_1995-1.jpg&hash=9bf03b63d1d8871f03b756ba3c44d6a52e1b7da9)

 

That is one ugly baby daddy.

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.

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?

Quote from: "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?

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.

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.

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.

Quote from: "GAYtheist"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.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"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.

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.

Quote from: "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.

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

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.

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"

Quote from: "GAYtheist"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?

Quote from: "Tank"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.

Quote from: "Tank"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.

Quote from: "Tank"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 (http://www.bio.davidson.edu/Courses/anphys/1999/Rice/Rice.htm)

Quote from: "Tank"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.

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

Here is a good link to the younger sibling issue. http://www.narth.com/docs/domothers.html (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.  

Quote from: "Sophus"male homosexual orientation in mammals is caused by sexual antagonistic selection.

This article describes sexual antagonistic selection.  It is a reasonable explanation of biological influence.  There may be others.
I would expect cultural, including family influences to be important.
http://www.slate.com/id/2194232 (http://www.slate.com/id/2194232)

Quote from: "Tank"What happens when the older more macho brother dies?

I didn't actualy say more macho.
There is a history of bad ass homosexual or androphiliac warriors.  
They may not pass on androphiliac genes directly, but the article above suggests their female relatives will be more likely to.

I actually went to, and I don't recommend this, to a Christian forum to ask about homosexuality.  I was really shocked by the outrage against homosexuality I got from those on the site.  One guy actually said he would go up to a homosexual and say, "You make me sick, I want to vomit all over you."  Of course that was the nice thing he said.

I asked a question that no one on the site could answer or would answer.  I asked where did this "hatred" of homosexuality came from, the Old Testament or New Testament.  Of course I was quoted several verses from the OT, that explained why they were against homosexuality, so I asked if it was ok for me to stone my kids for being disrespectful.  I thought if they are going to pull things out of the OT, then so could I.  Well, you can imagine the response, it was pretty funny actually.

ITT, Matrin confesses to trolling