Is it always based on religion?

[Tyo]

Does homophobia on a societal level always have its roots and find its justification in religion? Are there also strictly secular forces driving the anti-gay movement?

I don't see how the personal and natural disinclination of straights to have sex with those of their own gender could in and of itself account for the intensity of the feeling against us.

[idealistMO]

1. It is both

I know homophobes that are religious - and I know some that are secular. I also know plenty of devout religious people that are accepting of homosexuals. I suspect there is a group of people that call themselves "Cultural Conservatives" that are the real target

[Smarmie Doofus]

2. Nothing at all to do with religion.

But don't tell that to the religionists.

Or the homophobes.

Read 'The Nature of Prejudice' by Gordon Allport.

It has to do with psychology and sociology.

[Tyo]

12. I have a hard time buying the idea that religion is not at the root of much of this

But I've Googled Allport and had a look at the book. Until I read it there's not much I can say. Thanks for the tip:thumbsup:

[Smarmie Doofus]

18. Well, consider this:

(Let's assume that homophobic behavior is present in it's most *unadulterated* forms in childhood...before people grow up and apply all kinds of fancy religious explanations and rationales for why they believe homosexuals are objectionable .)

I estimate that I have witnessed *thousands* of interactions among school age kids in which homosexuals, or homosexuality has been devalued. ( I work in education so I have a big head start on the numbers; but others must have witnessed *hundreds* from their own experience growing up.)

Here's the deal: I have never (not EVER, not ONCE in those 'thousands') heard religion being cited by a kid acting homophobically as a rationale for his/her hostility toward gays.

The idea, if you think about it, is actually laughable: consider this fifth grade dialog: " Oh man, I don't wanna hang out with Jimmy... he's such a fuckin' *sodomite*." or "Hey dude, people like you are condemned in Leviticus, Chapter 18!"

Sound plausible? 'Course not. It's not 'religion' ( at least not in the sense of theology); it's in-group out-group dynamics in the social/psychological sense. If it weren't gays, it would be Jews; if not Jews, Muslims,gypsies, Latinos, African Americans and on and on and on. It's gotta be *someone*.

Allport had a chapter called something like "Selecting a Scapegoat." ( Sorry, I can't find the book anymore but I'm almost sure it's still in print, though he must be dead and it was written *before* the modern LGBT movement was born... which is actually one of it's strengths since it describes the process of GLBT marginalization so perfectly, without the taint of preconceived views of the author.) I really think it ( societal homophobia) is a somewhat arbitrary process, of the sort he describes there, that relates to religion only tangentially.

[Tyo]

19. Okay, you definitely have a point

But I think it's kind of a stretch to start off with assumption that homophobic behavior is present in an unadulterated form in childhood. Racism as far as I know doesn't exist that way. Does the fact that homosexuality is evidenced to others by one's behavior whereas race isn't make a difference?

Have you ever questioned the "homophobic" kids as to why they think like they do? Most adults don't go around quoting the Bible either, at least not in the manner you describe in your example. But at least in my experience if they are pressed you often get stuff like, "the Bible says it's wrong", or "it's just not natural and anyway doesn't the Bible say it's a sin?"

These are hardly regular church-goers who are talking here. But they are affected by Christian attitudes nevertheless. Certainly this gets passed on to their kids. One question I would ask (and I haven't read the book yet) is what qualifies a group to be in the pool of potential scapegoats? I would guess it would have to be some sort of real or perceived weakness. Since even a majority can be oppressed numbers aren't necessarily the deciding factor.

[Smarmie Doofus]

22. Bless my pointed little head!

Here's a pretty good article ( but too short; the book is much more comprehensive; a major study) about Allport's relevance to this issue:


http://sheilakennedy.net/content/view/797/43/


>>>>>But I think it's kind of a stretch to start off with assumption that homophobic behavior is present in an unadulterated form in childhood. Racism as far as I know doesn't exist that way. Does the fact that homosexuality is evidenced to others by one's behavior whereas race isn't make a difference?>>>>>

I think I said *most* unadulterated form. In other words the most unadulterated form *available*. That is, before it becomes adulterated when as adults they cast around for 'reasons' to justify or rationalize the feelings. Point is: religion is *never* mentioned by homophobic kids. If it were mentioned RARELY, I wouldn't think it of any particular significance.... maybe there are other elements obscuring the religious connections underlying these kids' thinking. But that's my point: in my experience, religion is NEVER mentioned by homopohobic kids. Not 'rarely'; *never*. This means something. I'm thinking it means there's little if any connection between their religious training, or lack thereof, and their attitude toward the big H.


>>>Have you ever questioned the "homophobic" kids as to why they think like they do? Most adults don't go around quoting the Bible either, at least not in the manner you describe in your example. But at least in my experience if they are pressed you often get stuff like, "the Bible says it's wrong", or "it's just not natural and anyway doesn't the Bible say it's a sin?">>>>

Pre-puberty they have absolutely no idea what they are talking about. The antipathy toward gays is also relatively benign. It's just something vaguely icky or silly or undesirable. They are also more educable at this time, more amenable to correction and more open to changing their preconceptions. "So and so ( famous person) is gay, you know" type discussions are helpful at this time. The kids don't mention religious objections.

When puberty sets in, the whole phenomenon takes on a much more malevolent character, esp. among boys. They use the idea itself as a means of psychologically terrorizing each other and establishing and maintaining a relentlessly hierarchical pecking order. They for the most part can't be reasoned with on this issue. To the degree that they express themselves at all, it's 'nasty' or 'disgusting'. They confuse a lot of things like gender nonconformity and sexual preference, and of course, generally receive no sex education on this topic. They don't mention the bible or any religious objections.

The fact that, as adults, they have to fumble around for 'religious' reasons to oppose homosexuality speaks for itself.


>>>>These are hardly regular church-goers who are talking here.>>>>

That's fer sure!

>>> But they are affected by Christian attitudes nevertheless.>>>>

I'm not sure I'd call it "Christian". The bible has about 45 million words on all sorts of topics. As I'm sure you know, one can pull from that 45 million, snippets and excerpts to support * any* proposition imaginable. The fact that they are LOOKING for snippets to support their marginalization of this particular minority suggests the presence of a *mind-set* that precedes the actual 'study' of the text.

It's not religion and it's not the bible. It's the MIND-SET.


>>>>>> Certainly this gets passed on to their kids. One question I would ask (and I haven't read the book yet) is what qualifies a group to be in the pool of potential scapegoats? I would guess it would have to be some sort of real or perceived weakness. Since even a majority can be oppressed numbers aren't necessarily the deciding factor.>>>>

The article link has some speculation on this aspect. Why some groups and not others? But try to get the book if you can. It's *reeeaally* good.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

3. india is homophobic and as far as i know no one says its because

its against hinduism

they mostly say its a mental problem or a debauched lifestyle of the west

etc

[Tyo]

13. Good point.

But why DO they have a problem with it then? Has is always been that way? Japan, for example, has far more issues with homosexuality now than it did before Perry blew in. Is is maybe one more legacy of the Christian cultural imperialists?

[xchrom]

4. are there homophobic atheists? sure --

because they are creatures of our culture.

and our culture has deep psychological roots in religion.

religion has we have seen in this century -- can keep the chains of homophobia on -- or they can drop them.

[Jella]

8. In a nutshell

I think you've hit the nail on the head.

[Bear down under]

25. Exactly.

Atheism is religion in drag. Or at least the form practised by every atheist I know is.

[Tyo]

26. How do you "practice" disbelief

I think that this deserves a thread of its own.

[Bear down under]

27. When is disbelief different from belief?

Is there any real difference between the two statements, "I disbelieve in God" and "I believe there is no God" ?

As for practising, one doesn't have to have the whole panoply of buildings, worship services, demands for money etc etc. Few atheists I know can resist preaching their beliefs (or disbeliefs if you prefer) to anyone who will listen. Some of them are as eager to condemn anyone who doesn't agree with them as any fundamentalist preacher.

It strikes me that virtually all of them are in strong reaction to a rigidly religious upbringing, so religion is still setting the terms of the debate. Their bottom line is "If God doesn't exist, then it's OK for me to be gay."

Sorry to bring baggage, but I have just spent a week ignoring twice-daily e-mails from a friend (and a client of my small business) demanding that I read his new favourite book (Dawkins' God Delusion) and see the error of my ways. Dress rehearsal for yet another confrontation with his fundamentalist parents who have written him out of their wills in favour of their grandchildren by his brothers....

[unpossibles]

5. I could be wrong here, but I think it IS personal (fear) and religion is used as an excuse

First of all, one of the first things homophobes tend to do is proclaim loudly and proudly, how straight they are and/or state that they don't want to be hit upon. If nothing else, this is pretty egotistical - just because someone likes men doesn't mean they are attracted to all men. I think it's a complex thing though.

With some people, I think it's honestly just a naive ignorance - if someone who is straight has never truly befriended someone who is gay (or black, or Mexican, or what have you), then all they have to base their decisions on are stereotypes, which tend toward the negative. These stereotypes further bias their reactions when they do meet people who are "different" from them as well, and may hamper their ability to approach the new person with a blank slate, so to speak.

With others, I think there is a self-hatred involved. Look at people like Ted Haggard, who obviously has issues adjusting their own desires to their (screwed up) world view. Instead of taking an unbiased and healthy assessment of their own feelings or desires, they are so in denial that they lie and cheat to get what they want while keeping a front of hatred for public reasons. I also lump in quite a few of the guys who would beat suspected gay kids up in high school, then ended up being gay themselves years later after they came to grips with themselves in an honest way.

Finally, there are some who honestly think it is a sin/transgression, but this never flies with me since (a) we have religious freedom and (b) they always choose to ignore other sins/transgressions (such as the famous "god hates shrimp" thing or pretty much all of Jesus' feelings that we are not the ones who should judge each other because God will do that).

I really believe though, that most who use religion as an excuse really think it is "gross" or whatever, that they usually do not really know any gay people who are out, and that they do not seem to understand that everyone is human, that we all have different tastes and desires, and that as long as everyone is consensual and adult that there is nothing wrong with that.

I also tend to see human sexual orientation as more of a sliding scale, and that it is not uncommon or wrong for anyone - gay or straight - to occasionally think/wonder/fantasize about someone or a situation which is taboo or outside of their usual attraction. I think we as a species are way too uptight about this stuff and we all need to respect each other as individuals more, yet also see each other as the same. We're all human.

I say this from experience too. I grew up "in the sticks" and was quite ignorant about people and humanity until I moved to a city with a lot of diversity in every way you can imagine. On a semi-related note, I wonder if that is the real reason the right wing tends to hate college - because for many it is the first experience that the world is much wider and that humanity is much more diverse (yet still human), and that's the last thing they want: to lose their toehold of FEAR on us. They want us to fear each other: the Mexicans will steal your jobs! Those blacks will steal your women! Those gays will give you aids! it's their big motivator, and frankly it pisses me off.

[Tyo]

14. I'm sure this is a factor

But are straight guys, because I think it's mainly guys, I might be wrong, that afraid of showering with us or maybe even being one of us? I may be underestimating this fear or distaste or whatever it is. I do think you are very right in saying that familiarity tends to breed acceptance.

We are unfortunately a "fear factor" for many people and as such are something for the Righties and the Fundies to capitalize on.

[TygrBright]

6. I think "secular" is the wrong word.

I think there are, most emphatically, cultural forces that generate homophobia as a result; perhaps many of those forces can be traced over a very long chain of history to religions (some of them dead and gone by now) but they have transcended explicitly religious motivation.

Those in power are always seeking a way to do two things: Increase the amount and scope of that power, and ensure that those subjected to that power cooperate in the system. By controlling the most fundamental human drives, both goals are acheived.

Religion has always been a tool for the powerful, that is why so many religious doctrines focus around fundamental human drives. One of which is the drive to reproduce, to pass on one's genetic package, a drive so fundamental as to be hardwired below the level of consciousness. Those in power are not immune to that drive, throughout human history most of the law regulating relations between genders can be traced to the need for those in power to ensure that they have the best opportunities to pass on their genes, and also that it is THEIR genes that have been passed on-- one reason why polygyny is far more common than polyandry, and why women's legal status has so often devolved to a state similar to livestock or real estate. Controllable by the dominant element in society.

Roundabout as this may seem, it is a major component, perhaps the major component, in the development of societies' norms of gender-specific identity and etiquette. In short, it is the source of male anxiety about whether they are "man enough," an anxiety as pervasive and intense as female anxiety about whether they are "attractive enough."

Male anxiety is the source of a huge amount of homophobia, and has been throughout human history. Men who opt out of the societally-accepted norms of "man enough" challenge the system. The system, not unnaturally, hits back. Religion is a tool for hitting back, but it goes far beyond religion.

It takes a fundamental change in a society's understanding of gender identity and purpose, to change the norms, and it is not a quick process. Such processes take generations, maybe centuries. We're actually progressing fairly quickly, in that our scientific, intellectual and legal understandings of gender identity have outstripped our emotional, psychological, and cultural understandings. That may be part of why religion has acquired so much power, recently: A backlash against the challenge posed by evolving scientific and intellectual understanding to the emotional core of what we "know" on the level of our reptilian brains.

pedantically,
Bright

[Tyo]

15. Hadn't really thought of that one

So if I've got this right, gender identity as created or at least fostered by religion has become so entrenched that even where the strictly religious component has fallen away, the identity and the accompanying fears and hangups remain.

[durrrty libby]

7. I think people use religion as an excuse to justify their own

homophobia

I also believe homophobics are projecting their

own insecurity about their own sexuality.

It really is not that complicated

[xchrom]

9. but there insecurity is rooted in the culture.

and the culture has deep religious roots.


and the individual is the child of all that.

[durrrty libby]

10. I disagree

Not all people grow up in "deep" religious
culture. It is just not true

[xchrom]

11. it's in the culture -- it doesn't matter -- people breathe -- eat it -- drink it.

you don't have to be raised religious at all.

that's not to sau that some don't escape it -- but like racism -- most people have a degree of homophobia.

even gay people.

[Tyo]

16. Seems to me that we have retained in a residual form the attitudes toward sex...

held by of a couple of homophobic religions even if we no longer actively practice these religions.

[Unvanguard]

17. Sometimes religion

and sometimes people who stubbornly hold to narrow, traditional gender roles reacting to relationships that necessarily violate them.

And sometimes both.

[Kipling]

20. It's a lot of it.

In societies without a tradition of homophobic religion, like Japan, homosexuality was far more acceptable. But some societies seem to have developed homophobia simply due to a fear of the unusual. Plato was possibly the first westerner to oppose homosexuality on moral grounds, and he did so with no religious reasoning whatsoever.

[Ian David]

21. I've gone scrambling into Google-Land...

Are atheists against gay marriage? - FF Today Forums
Are atheists against gay marriage? Options. kutulu. Jul 12 2006, 10:13 AM. Post #1. FF Geek Group: Members Posts: 16058 Joined: 24-May 00 Member No.: 1483 ...
www.fftodayforums.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=215544

Yahoo! Answers - A question about Gay Marraige?
I guess there aren't any atheists against gay marriage. 2 months ago - Report Abuse. 0. 0. by viva_mi_razza 2 months ago ...
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20061003195817AAmB6ZL

Could real same-sex marriage be next?. - Automatically-Generated ...
4] Out of curiousity are there any atheists against gay marriage who have posted? Just wondering.<4> Let me add one more thing before I take a much needed ...
http://newsfeedresearcher.com/data/articles_n50/idn2006.12.15.13.19.26.html


Also:
Your search - "humanists against gay marriage" - did not match any documents.

[Tyo]

23. Thanks for the scramble, Ian

Fantasy Football Today? How cool is that? Didn't even know that place existed. The two atheist fantasy footballers who responded didn't care. Gay marriage was fine with them.

The people on the Yahoo Answers thread who objected all did so for religious reasons except for one guy who wanted marriage to apply to straights and civil unions to apply to gays, and someone's idiot brother-in-law who didn't believe in God but was afraid that legalizing marriage equality would lead to man-dog unions.

I think that the jury is still out, but so far it looks to me like anti-gay prejudice, at least in this country, has strong roots in religion and how it has shaped our values whether we ourselves are religious or not. This is not the same thing as saying that all Christians are bigots. As I learned in another thread, Christianity is a remarkably elastic and multi-faceted creation. It was used to justify slavery, and later on Jim Crow, but at the same time it informed and fueled the civil rights movement.

[Ian David]

24. FWIW, there doesn't seem to be an ORGANIZED Atheist anti-gay movement

For example, there's no group called "Atheists For The Preservation of Marriage" or "The Heterosexual Humanist Alliance," or anything like that, as far as I can tell.

But there will always be individuals of every stripe who are bigoted. Being free of religious dogma does not automatically free you of bigotry.

And on the internet, anyone can say they're an Atheist, whether they are or not. (Just like all the right-wingers who call Randi Rhodes always say they're a Marine).

Also, not all Christian groups are anti-gay or anti-gay-marriage.

There are even "welcoming" SOUTHERN Baptist churches that are gay-friendly.

There's also a group for gay Muslims, by the way (I've corresponded with the guy who runs it... he's not all to fond of Jews).

And there are some non-Judeo-Christian religions around the world that have always been gay-accepting, (or have always allowed gay marriage) including some Native American tribes.

[NMMNG]

28. It is always is based on religion

Take away the quotes from the Bible/Koran/other holy book, the references to what God/Allah says or what some holy leader believes about gays and nobody can ever come up with a valid, rational reason for homophobia. (And the "ick" factor is not a rational reason.)


Opposition to homophobia is not strictly secular, but it is mostly so.