Why do R-wing Xians hate gays?

Amergin

Amergin

Well-Known Member
Messages
521
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
North of Antarctica
I am a heterosexual married man (to the same woman for 40 years.) I notice a paradox in the views people have on gay marriage.

Since I never considered having sex with another man, I never understood those men who did so. However, it was no problem for me. I am secure in my gender identity and gender choice of a woman to love and have my children.

As a high school lad, I remember lads using queer or poofter as an insult to someone who seemed lacking in athletic skill, or someone who seemed a "sissy."

In College, I met some gay students. It was widely known but they never discussed it with me. We all ate at the cafeteria, argued sports and religion but all of us who are straight avoided the gender orientation topic out of proper manners. I never felt them to be a threat. I never believed that homosexuality was contagious (only morons would think that.)

The loudest homophobes (anti-homosexuals) are Christians, and almost always Fundamentalists, Ultrafundamentalists, Evangelicals, and conservative Catholics. Why is that?

They say that homosexuality spreads by social and personality contact. That is obvious bollocks. They say that homosexual marriage is a threat to your marriage and to my marriage. It is incredible.

An Atlanta study showed that real heterosexuals showed attraction to male-female sex and oddly to lesbian sex. Men living a heterosexual life style but expressive of homophobia were proven to be suppressing and repressing inner homosexual desires for the same sex. We now know through hundreds of neuroscience studies that all of our desires, thoughts, emotions, reason, memory, language, and moral compass are based on specific brain networks. There is a gender identification network closely overlapping gender selection (for sex) programme. No body chooses a gay lifestyle unless his brain is wired that way. It cannot be transmitted

Today we see the homosexual scandals in the Catholic priesthood, fundamentalist and ultrafundamentalist preachers, and Pentecostals.

Why is homophobia so rare in those who are religiously nominal, indifferent, non-religious, or members of liberal religious sects?

What is the connection between homophobia - repressed homosexuality, and hatred of homosexuals?

Gay marriage does not threaten my marriage in the least. I have nothing to fear if two blokes marry.

But the Christian Fundamentalist homophobe is struggling with desires which are strong but forbidden by Fundamentalist dogma. If he gives in to his desires he faces eternity in a burning hell. That surely makes me wonder about the writers of the Bible.

Christian Homophobes (allegedly living heterosexual lives) hate the openly homosexual man because that homosexual is a manifestation of the Right Wing Christian's fear (eternal Hell.) Such outrageous if irrational beliefs are enough to make the radical Christians hate, assault, and even kill homosexuals simply because the homosexual adds fuel to the homophobe's inner fire of homosexuality.

Prop 8 and the Judicial ruling is a great document of civil rights.

Only ignorant and/or mentally ill homophobes belief these FALSE beliefs about the US Constitution.

a. The Bill of Rights makes America a Christian Theocracy.
b. There is somewhere in the Constitution a definition of marriage as man-woman (Christian dogma).
c. There are clauses against interracial marriage, same sex marriage, Baptist-Baboon marriage, polygamy.
d. The Constitution is laws restriction individuals.
e. The Constitution does not guarantee human rights.
f. The Constitution is based entirely on the Bible.

Now here are the facts for those ignorant of the Constitution.

1. The Constitution does not define marriage.
2. It does not explicitly forbid gay marriage.
3. It does not forbid interracial marriage. (Many Fundies do.)
4. Constitution expresses rights and privileges.
5. It does not outlaw polygamy. Outlawing polygamy and gay marriage are clearly UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
6. It is unconstitutional for any American to be bound by laws purely based on Christian superstition or dogma.

Christianity brought more than a millennium of oppression, persecution, wars, witch hunts, and severe restriction on individual freedom.

The US Constitution gives freedom to people for the first time since ancient Greece. The major feature is equality and equal rights under the law. The Constitution was written partly to free us from religious oppression.

Amergin
 
Because it's one of the basic requirements to be on the right. :)

As for your gay marriage part, I don't agree that it is a threat to my marriage... Gays getting married isn't a factor in my marriage, that doesn't make sense. Although I disagree with them being able to wed.
 
Just a few thoughts Amergin, forgive the generalisations. Loads of people hate gays. Some Christian fundies, many muslims, very many black Africans regardless of religious connection, I don't know about the far East but I wouldn't be surprised if there were parts that were distinctly anti-gay.

Some of this is I think cultural. It is only in recent times it has been OK to be openly gay. Previously men stayed single, became monks, married but did not have sex, etc but being gay was unknown. So it came as a bit of a shock to many people for whom it all seemed so wrong.

Also I think there are some personalities that I would call rule-followers. They like everything to be just so. No nasty surprises, everything shiny and beautiful. For these personalities anything odd is unwelcome. These types feel most comfortable in rule-based religious frameworks such as the christian fundamentalist churches.

Your list of hotbeds (!) of homosexuality did not include prisons. Obviously any place where there are a lot of sexually frustrated men with no female partners around there is going to be some homosexual outlet. Unfortunately Catholic priests have a celebacy rule which means that temptation is always a close companion. Some succumb.

The evidence of anything anti-gay in the Bible is very weak indeed. This has been discussed at length on this forum. There were some nasty practices around in the past, such as the ancient Greek practice of openly bringing up boys as officially sanctioned sexual partners, engaging in frequent multiple-partner homosexuality, etc and these were quite rightly condemned. It was not a blanket condemnation of all homosexuality.

I've said it before I know, but you do seem anxious to hit religion with any spanner that comes to hand. Some might call that prejudice. I think we'd all like to hear why you take this so personally. Have you had bad experiences in your life? Maybe you need to come to terms with those.

best wishes, cliff
 
Last edited:
Re: Why does the Left hate the Right?

There is more hatred nowadays from Left toward the Right, than vice versa. One current example is the angry pro-gay partnerships louts trying to shout down & threaten the peaceful pro-marriage rallies. I have seen some of the videos. Go to the National Organization for Marriage site.
 
The US Constitution gives freedom to people for the first time since ancient Greece. The major feature is equality and equal rights under the law. The Constitution was written partly to free us from religious oppression.
Click to expand...
Under the Constitution, the homosexual society must be identified as a "suspect class" before they can enjoy the rights afforded others due to race, gender, creed, etc. The homosexual society does not want to be identified as a suspect class, therefore, under the Constitution, they have no special rights that "supercede" the rights of the rest of society as it is established. Furthermore, the man's rights would (for society as a whole), become even further diminished, particularly when it comes to children. "Roe vs. Wade".

Has nothing to do with Right wing or Left wing.

Basic Constitutional law.
 
Virtual_Cliff said:
It is only in recent times it has been OK to be openly gay. Previously men stayed single, became monks, married but did not have sex, etc but being gay was unknown. So it came as a bit of a shock to many people for whom it all seemed so wrong.

There were some nasty practices around in the past, such as the ancient Greek practice of openly bringing up boys as officially sanctioned sexual partners, engaging in frequent multiple-partner homosexuality, etc and these were quite rightly condemned. It was not a blanket condemnation of all homosexuality.
Click to expand...

Hi, VC.

You first said it's "only in recent times" that homosexuality has been (more) acknowledged/accepted; then you give an example of a homosexual-related practice employed by ancient Greece.

Did you mean to say that homosexuality has been acknowledged/accepted by various ancient cultures but went "underground" due to religious influences--and is now (somewhat) safe to be acknowledged/accepted once again?
 
Homophobia is not at all limited to religious views - find any working class pub in the UK and you'll find similar views expressed - mostly out of ignorance (ie, not personally knowing any homosexuals).

With religion, there becomes a reason - a "truth" - by which to justify the ignorance. So perhaps it is simply the case that religious homophobes speak the loudest.
 
Quahom1 said:
Under the Constitution, the homosexual society must be identified as a "suspect class" before they can enjoy the rights afforded others due to race, gender, creed, etc. The homosexual society does not want to be identified as a suspect class, therefore, under the Constitution, they have no special rights that "supercede" the rights of the rest of society as it is established. Furthermore, the man's rights would (for society as a whole), become even further diminished, particularly when it comes to children. "Roe vs. Wade".

Has nothing to do with Right wing or Left wing.

Basic Constitutional law.
Click to expand...

Interesting Q, I had thought the concept was first used in regard to Japanese Americans before they were placed in internment camps. Could you tell me how to find out more?
 
Paladin said:
Interesting Q, I had thought the concept was first used in regard to Japanese Americans before they were placed in internment camps. Could you tell me how to find out more?
Click to expand...
I'd be happy to. However please do not mistake the term "suspect class" with "subject class", which is profiling. For example, Native Americans are a "suspect class" and enjoy certain rights and privileges other citizens do not.

Why Gay Marriage is Unconstitutional - David R. Usher - MensNewsDaily.com™

The Author is David R. Usher.
 
I said:
Homophobia is not at all limited to religious views - find any working class pub in the UK and you'll find similar views expressed - mostly out of ignorance (ie, not personally knowing any homosexuals).

With religion, there becomes a reason - a "truth" - by which to justify the ignorance. So perhaps it is simply the case that religious homophobes speak the loudest.
Click to expand...

I think that there is a link but it may be a retro-link. In other words, there has been prejudice against gays in all cultures. In Scotland, as lads we thought homosexuals were just not manly, not good Albannach Jocks. Later learning about it from a class in school, we were naturally repelled by the actual practice of it. I am heterosexual so the practice of homosexuality repels me. But I don't care if they do it in private and have full rights.

I think that many people who are gender disoriented (gay feelings), feel self-hatred over something that in part of their minds finds "ickey."

Religion (Christianity and Islam) condemn homosexuality for whatever reasons. Their mythology and commandments outlaw homosexuality. So the struggling heterosexual male with homosexual drives, links to religion.

Catholic boys born to typical Irish or French mothers are expected to grow up as Doctors or Lawyers with marriage and families. Mum is proud of "my son the doctor." But the boy who feels homosexual urges and lacks attraction to girls has an escape hatch. He can enter the Seminary to become a celibate priest. Mum is also proud of "my son Father James."

Celibacy is often broken by homosexual impulses but hidded from the public by the celibate image and the cover ups by the Church.

Some enter the ministry of Protestant churches thinking that accepting Jesus will rid them of the evil urges. They reinforce that by ranting against homosexuals in fiery sermons, and forming groups to "cure" homosexuality by religious services and some form of exorcism. The results are pitifully ineffective.

Religious extremism may in fact be a reaction formation to inner conflict of homosexual feelings.

Amergin
 
Amergin said:
Why is homophobia so rare in those who are religiously nominal, indifferent, non-religious, or members of liberal religious sects?
Click to expand...

I think you've answered your own question there. Why is a form of intolerance so rare in tolerant people?

s.
 
Quahom1 said:
Under the Constitution, the homosexual society must be identified as a "suspect class" before they can enjoy the rights afforded others due to race, gender, creed, etc.
Click to expand...

Homophobia is made enshrined in the American constitution?

s.
 
It is literalist Christians that have the most issues with gays...

They read and interpret the scripture literally....well those lines anyway...the paragraph above and below the lines they quote so well...they are more than willing to ignore.

There is no justification.

Ignorance, yes, homophobia, yes.

A comedian the other day asked....if you don't want us to marry each other...who do you want us to marry? Your daughter? I didn't think so.
 
Snoopy said:
Homophobia is made enshrined in the American constitution?

s.
Click to expand...
Not in the constitution persee but the laws accompanying the Constitution, that seem to be needed to provide garuantees to minorities that would otherwise be overwhelmed by the "majority" of society.

Some examples are the rights of Native Americans to live within a state on their own land, and the laws of the state are not normally enforceable within that area of land (which is often called a Nation or reservation). These "Nations" have their own laws, and are subject only to the Federal Laws, such as any other state, but not to the state laws the "nation" physically resides in.

Another example is the rights of Native Americans to use traditional methods of fishing or hunting, that the rest of society is prohibited from using. Or the right to fish or hunt at times of the year, the rest of society may not fish or hunt.

There is the right of Native Americans to put up gambling establishments on their property, despite the state laws which prohibit gambling establishments anywhere else within the state.

There was the Affirmative Action laws of the 80s and 90s that attempted to equalize the opportunities of minorities for education and employment, when society at large did not wish to afford such.

Prior to that, there were special provisions that provided free slaves with 40 acres and a mule (free), in order to get them started as free men and productive members of society. This was not offered to any other part of society. They were also granted the right to full citizenship and (by proxy) to vote.

The ERA (equal rights amendment) was enacted to bring women socially, up to the same level as men. The 19th ammendment of the Constitution in this case, also did the same by granting citizen women the right to vote.

In each case, the "suspect" classes were given rights and privileges that others did not have, in order to bring them at par with the majority.

There was no "enshrinement" of the suspect classes (though some would argue there was).
 
wil said:
It is literalist Christians that have the most issues with gays...

They read and interpret the scripture literally....well those lines anyway...the paragraph above and below the lines they quote so well...they are more than willing to ignore.

There is no justification.

Ignorance, yes, homophobia, yes.

A comedian the other day asked....if you don't want us to marry each other...who do you want us to marry? Your daughter? I didn't think so.
Click to expand...
Lol, my response would have been what was once told to me in Greenwich Village "Hey, conversion could be FUN!!!" ;)
 
Dragonseer said:
Hi, VC.

You first said it's "only in recent times" that homosexuality has been (more) acknowledged/accepted; then you give an example of a homosexual-related practice employed by ancient Greece.

Did you mean to say that homosexuality has been acknowledged/accepted by various ancient cultures but went "underground" due to religious influences--and is now (somewhat) safe to be acknowledged/accepted once again?
Click to expand...
I was wondering if anyone would say that. I think there was a complete break with the ancient Greek & Roman cultures as such. The writing remained but everything else went under. The whole way of life.

Interesting point though, because it underlines how different it was then. And I immediately have to qualify that statement, because I understand there is an element today that are into sexual extravaganza, and maybe we don't need to be so liberal with them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top