Of course, many religious people are not anti-gay. However, you will find that most anti-gay people *are* religious. (Not all, but most.) Is there a link between being religious (all religions) and being anti-gay, or is it just a coincidence?
Kermie, I think religious people are more obviously anti gay. It comes from cherry picking Bible verses (IMO)..."The preacher says it's wrong so it's wrong" mentality. I don't think pastors have a monopoly on God. You know I love you and so does God.
What about other religions? Do you think the same dynamic is at play?
Oh and I love you too :D wish you were around more often!
Yes, I believe all religions have the same basic dynamic. I'm too busy with teenagers to keep up with all the conversations :)
If I recall correctly, the OT says that women in make up and jewelry is a sin.... That about wipes us all out so I wouldn't be quoting the OT too much :)
Most people that dislike onions are religious. Because most people are religious. You'd have to do a case-control study to even suggest an association. Even that wouldn't prove causation.
You're obfuscating. If there were no connection, you would find the same percentage of non-religious and religious people who don't like onions, which you would. But the same percentage aren't anti-gay.
Please google "case control study". I understand this, and if you did you would see that I wasn't obfuscating, but agreeing with your percentage comment.
"A man shall not lie with another man..." I think there may be links
That's only one text though. But you see the trend among all religions, I think.
Actually I change my vote to know. Reading some of the other comments. Hitler was not a Christian was anti-Christian yet he was extremely anti-gay. Assess the Russian anti-church government. I think it's a matter of personal experience.
And through the press that we associate anti-gay through churches here.
Hitler was religious is all over his early works and speeches
Told the people of Germany they would become gods he was more in the religious thing of accent mythology rather than a Christian
Clinton said he was religious too there is little evidence to convict him.
Almost everybody back them was anti-gay though. I don't think you can compare that time to now.
I would say a link it's like being brainwashed. Or just on educated. Although like I said most of the anti-gay people I know go to bars much more frequently than they do churches.
Can't people go to church and bars?
Of course they can. I'm saying those people are much more likely to hang out in a bar then at church.
Definitely a link.
Did you see what I said at the bottom?
I didn't until right now! I am soooo proud of you! And happy. <3
Haha thanks! How am I doing so far?
Really well! I saw one little slip up below, but you caught yourself. If I ever meet you, Kermie, I owe you a huge hug!! :)
Well I probably have a long way to go but I never deny a hug! :)
Of course there's a link. The bible is clear that homosexuality is sinful. However that is not a license to hate gays; it is rather the opposite.
We as Christians would do well to remember that, "God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us." Romans 5:8, ESV.
Hate exists period. People will grab the first excuse to justify their hate, but it exists regardless of their excuse of the day. I'd argue a not-so-insignificant amount of people choose a religion based on their pre-conceived prejudices.
it's a faulty link, but there is one there. people use religion as an excuse to hate. I don't get it. how did a message about love get twisted into this?
but I am rather left-leaning, a Christian, and a physicist.
Power, I think. When it comes right down to it. We're a species that needs to control (probably an evolutionary benefit, no?). Throughout our history we've found lots of ways to do it. This is just one of many.
as long as we keep differentiating between "us" and "them," well keep doing this.
it's truly sad.
I'm a right-leaning Christian, who vaguely remembers F=am, and I agree.
thanks, zuko. we need more of you.
The link is in the Bible, at least according to what most religious people say. They cite the verse in Leviticus in the OT that says that 'a man shall not lie with a man'. That's fine, but what about all the other sins named in Leviticus? Some are...
...relevant (i.e., incestuous relationships) but some are downright ignored in modern Christianity (ex., eating seafood without scales). People cherry pick the 'sins' they find reprehensible for some reason.
I think the reason is pretty clear--they choose things that don't personally affect them (well I'm not gay anyway so that's a good verse to follow!) to feel strongly about while ignoring the things that speak to what they actually do (eating shrimp,
getting divorced, etc.) alternatively, as I mentioned below, so people latch onto anti-gay verses based on their own deep shame about their own attractions.
However, to be fair, it's not just the Bible. This pops up in almost all religions.
The funny thing is, Jesus was asked what His greatest commandment was. Guess what he said: 'love the Lord your God with all your might'. His second greatest commandment? LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF. This is also where you hear the 'hate the sin...
...love the sinner' argument. Which is just ludicrous. How can you hate someone's sexuality, and love them? Sexuality is so deeply ingrained in our lives from such a young age, it IS us, in so many aspects. Love the sinner hate the sin is a thinly...
...veiled attempt to excuse prejudice. Nothing more.
Incidentally, I am a Christian and the aforementioned argument enrages me.
I'm curious what you think about the traditional/Puritan notions of sex in general among religious folks or Christians specifically. I think in some ways the fascination with anti-gay verses is connected to mores about sex more broadly.
When looking at Old Testament law addressed to theocratic Israel, it is important to remember the categories in which it was given. The ceremonial law, dealing with ceremonial uncleanliness and dietary laws etc., is fulfilled by Christ. Paul makes
this clear in his epistles. There is also the judicial law, the crime and punishment system for the nation. It was a theocracy, and was meant to to be kept clean and holy for God. However these laws do not extend out of their historical
place and time. It is why we certainly should not stone gays and adulterers today. Thirdly, there is the moral law. The moral law is relevant to this day, as it is recapitulated in Christ's teaching and by the apostles. Homosexuality and sexual
immorality in general falls under the moral law. It is not disregarded simply because people now eat pork.
In short, which Old Testament laws are followed and which are not is far from arbitrary.
I'm curious, where does Jesus mention homosexuality? And why don't Christians follow his other decrees (no divorce, plucking out your eyes for lusting, giving away all you own, etc.) if NT law is so important?
Sorry just now seeing your response above, Kermie. I don't agree with most of what is taught in traditional Christianity about sex. The idea that people are expected to remain chaste until they marry is not only unrealistic for most, but damaging...
...They teach children to grow up with this fairy tale notion of courtship and 'waiting'. Then condemn them and convey disappointment when they 'fail' at waiting. They feel guilty and bad about themselves and equate sex with sin, when it's really...
...one of the greatest pleasures in life. A healthy approach to sex needs to be developed in the church.
Jesus loved the woman who committed adultery. Did he also love adultery? After all, it was about sexuality. How did that story end again?
And kermie, plucking out your eye is clearly a hyperbole meant to make a point. Use some common sense.
How do you know which rules were hyperbole and which were not? Just the ones you don't want to follow?
*deep breath* benicebenicebenice
I mean, oh, interesting take :) thanks for the input!
Twss--thanks. I like your take on it.
Well, common sense and context is how you know when anyone is using hyperbole. No different here.
If you say so. I'd say much of the Old Testament reads like hyperbole to me, but people took it seriously.
I'm genuinely interested in how you see the difference between what god said in the OT that could easily be seen as extreme and what god/Jesus said in the NT that is just as extreme. How did believers come to understand the former as literal but
the latter as hyperbole, when they read the same and were spoken by the same person?
I'm not sure what you mean. Much of the OT is metaphor and "hyperbole", if you will. It has to be taken in cultural and historical context.
Laws in the OT about, say, stoning your children were accepted as literal because god said it. But when god says cut off your hand in the NT, it's hyperbole. Did god change?
If you're serious about broadening your mind (which I doubt) then I suggest you read what Aquinas said about the Old Law vs the New Law. The full text can be Google searched.
I'm not asking Aquinas, who I'm well familiar with. Remember I went to Christians schools all my life including college. I'm asking you. How do you personally reconcile it?
I've already explained it. And I agree with Aquinas. Short answer: God didn't change. People did. Read more Aquinas.
Lfb2ii2, sorry that I'm just now responding, but your post above to me about Jesus loving the adulterer, but not loving the adultery is a ludicrous comparison to the subject at hand. It's not illegal to commit adultery and it will never be. It's...
...illegal to marry one's homosexual partner, however, and why? Because (most) Christians say it shouldn't be. That's a simple explanation, but you do see there's no comparison between adultery and the prejudice gays face from modern religion, right?
No worries about delays. I was referring to the "love the sinner, hate the sin" comment. That was the source of my comparison.
Legality only deals with man's law, not God's law.
If marriage is designed by God for humanity, then God's design for sex (i.e. male/female) is a part of it. Should there be a legal equivalent (civil union) for anyone who wants it? Of course.
I think the true link is that people are afraid, struggle for their power in society. We have always picked on the minority in order to bolster our own self worth, to have a unifying force so we belong, to maintain our
own status and power, etc. Religion is, unfortunately, often the framework for such bigotry. But ideology and nationalism can be too.
Too true. That's the bittersweet thing about acceptance of gay rights for me. I know the world will just move on to some other marginalized group.
Think of it like this Kermie, we knock down this domino, then there's one less domino of bigotry to knock down. I don't think we're adding new dominoes. We may just be realizing they're there, but they always have been. It's progress.
Yes, I agree. I appreciate the positive spin :) here's to the day that there are no more dominos left!
I'll drink to that (takes a swig of morning coffee and smiles)
Some people against gay rights use religion as their reason. I don't know if there really is a correlation. Maybe you can find a poll in the history that proves it for SoH users.
Interesting, maybe I will do some searching whilst avoiding Halloween this evening :)
This probably won't go over well, but I think it is possibly linked to an inability to think outside the box.
Perhaps more generously, for most of us (myself included) it's difficult to think outside what you've experienced in life and what you've been taught.
I agree that is it not easy to think outside the box. But it seems like some aren't even willing to try.
True. It might be a personality thing.
They use religion as an excuse for their bigotry. The religious love to pick and choose what they want to follow from their religious text and interpret it based on how they want to live.
If someone has a problem with homosexuals and doesn't want to sound like a bigot, they just have to say it's against their religion and somehow that's suppose to be ok.
Maybe some do. Probably not all. It's kind of a chicken or the egg thing, I think. Which came first, a person's bigotry or their religion? Hard to tell sometimes.
I agree with Kermie. It's really hard to decipher which came first. At my church it isn't stated but it is understood, yet there are some gay people that still go to my church. The thing is, I think that the bible can be interpreted differently.
According to my church I'd be going to hell times a thousand. But I ask for forgiveness and have faith that I will
be forgiven, I am a good person. I find that the people who say they are anti-gay because of their religion are the people that use
I understand what you're saying and agree for the most part. I just find it strange that a person could have such strong feelings against gays--cuz it's against their religion--but could really careless about premarital sex.
Their religion to cover up their own shortcomings. My father in law is one of those people. He sits and passes judgments on everybody yet says he's extremely religious. Being judgmental and doing God's duties, seems like that would be more of a sin
Well if you notice most people who are not against premarital sex are those who have had it.
That's what I'm saying. They pick and choose what they follow and interpret religious text based on how they want to live.
For homosexuality specifically, studies have shown that people who are most strongly homophobic have unacknowledged same-sex attractions of their own and the shame makes them lash out at others. So where did that shame come from? For many, it came
from their faith and their religious leaders. So if they hadn't been religious, maybe they would have just been openly gay, and therefore not anti-gay. So while I think some people are bigots and then choose matching religion, I also think some
people's bigotry is informed by their religion. It goes both ways.
I understand what you're saying, they may be against gays cuz that's what they've been taught and raised to believe. But once they're mature enough to think for themselves, why can't they just ignore that part like they do with the other parts?
A lot of people never reach that step.
Any links to those studies, kermie? I've heard that before, but never from a reliable source.
Sure, I've seen half a dozen over the years. I don't have time to look right now but I'm sure you could google it. Not sure what you believe is a reliable source though.
Of course there's a link. Religious texts explicitly condemn homosexuality.
Yep. It's extremely dishonest for anyone to say there's no link between them.
Well it is true that most religious texts--of religions from Judaism to Islam to Bahai--are anti-gay. A lot of people do tend to ignore or whitewash that. I don't know if that's "extremely dishonest" or just wishful thinking.
Well... Non-religious people don't makeup a huge part of the population. So, the likelihood of you meeting an "anti-gay" non-religious person is less likely.
Maybe for you. Not for me, as most of my friends are non-religious.
Anyway, if there's no link, shouldn't the proportions of each group be the same?
I was referring to the population as a whole. My point is statistically indisputable.
Of course. And it's irrelevant. It's not about who I meet or who you meet. It's about what percentage of religious people are anti-gay vs. what percentage of non-religious. If religion is a non-factor, the percentage should be the same.
Is there a statistic that says that? I'm just curious.
That says what?
Can't you elaborate on your point? Not sure if you're suggesting that communists are not religious? Which of course it's true because Jesus himself and the earliest Christians were commies.
I think his point is that marxist communist states haven't had a great history with LGBT communities either. Whether this is solely because of communism or other cultural factors though is, IMHO, a legitimate question
No group has had a great history with gay rights. I still don't understand what communists have to do with religion though.
Never fear! Kay and Hayley are trying to get to me to be nice on this subject so I will work very hard to be nice to everyone who comments here. :)