Homosexuality and Religion

[Pathless]

In a thread in Abrahamic religions, someone stated that homosexuality is a mental illness. This was then refuted by another poster, with quite a bit of detail about the biological nature of homosexuality and several definitions of what mental illness is.

I would certainly agree that homosexuality is not a mental illness. Such a claim is not only ridiculous but betrays deep prejudice, fear, and perhaps hatred.

In many religious cirlces, homosexuality is considered a sin. Many more secular people consider homsexuality a deviant behavior that should be corrected. Again, I take issue with these views.

I guess I am starting this thread out of anger. Heterosexuals are never asked, "Why are you attracted to the opposite sex?" or "When did you know that you were attracted to the opposite sex instead of the same sex?" They are never told that they are going to Hell because they are heterosexual, or that they have a mental illness. So why do homosexuals have to endure that kind of treatment?

The poster who has been vehemently claimng that homosexuality is a mental illness calls himself a Muslim. But what if someone were to say that Islam is a mental illness? Certainly he would be offended, and with good reason. Just as someone's religion is a defining characteristic of who they are, so is someone's sexuality. Neither one of these things should be slandered by being classified as a mental illness or inherently wrong.

[kiwimac]

Originally Posted by Pathless

In a thread in Abrahamic religions, someone stated that homosexuality is a mental illness. This was then refuted by another poster, with quite a bit of detail about the biological nature of homosexuality and several definitions of what mental illness is.

I would certainly agree that homosexuality is not a mental illness. Such a claim is not only ridiculous but betrays deep prejudice, fear, and perhaps hatred.

In many religious cirlces, homosexuality is considered a sin. Many more secular people consider homsexuality a deviant behavior that should be corrected. Again, I take issue with these views.

I guess I am starting this thread out of anger. Heterosexuals are never asked, "Why are you attracted to the opposite sex?" or "When did you know that you were attracted to the opposite sex instead of the same sex?" They are never told that they are going to Hell because they are heterosexual, or that they have a mental illness. So why do homosexuals have to endure that kind of treatment?

The poster who has been vehemently claimng that homosexuality is a mental illness calls himself a Muslim. But what if someone were to say that Islam is a mental illness? Certainly he would be offended, and with good reason. Just as someone's religion is a defining characteristic of who they are, so is someone's sexuality. Neither one of these things should be slandered by being classified as a mental illness or inherently wrong.

Friend,

I echo your sentiments. Prejudice must be stood against for it is a symptom of bad thought which will lead to bad words and bad deeds.

For me as a Zoroastrian God is totally good, thus all His creation is good and is functioning as it was designed. "... Evil is the product of our wrongful choices and it is to be eliminated by good choices. Zarathushtra expresses this beautifully as "delivering wrong into the hands of righteousness." When mortals eliminate evil choices they become progressively more Whole (complete), eventually leading to immortality in the better existence (the House of Good Mind) and in the very presence of our Creator. . . . "

Source: http://www.zoroastrianism.cc/good_and_evil.html

Kiwimac

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Pathless

In a thread in Abrahamic religions, someone stated that homosexuality is a mental illness. This was then refuted by another poster, with quite a bit of detail about the biological nature of homosexuality and several definitions of what mental illness is.

I would certainly agree that homosexuality is not a mental illness. Such a claim is not only ridiculous but betrays deep prejudice, fear, and perhaps hatred.

In many religious cirlces, homosexuality is considered a sin. Many more secular people consider homsexuality a deviant behavior that should be corrected. Again, I take issue with these views.

I guess I am starting this thread out of anger. Heterosexuals are never asked, "Why are you attracted to the opposite sex?" or "When did you know that you were attracted to the opposite sex instead of the same sex?" They are never told that they are going to Hell because they are heterosexual, or that they have a mental illness. So why do homosexuals have to endure that kind of treatment?

The poster who has been vehemently claimng that homosexuality is a mental illness calls himself a Muslim. But what if someone were to say that Islam is a mental illness? Certainly he would be offended, and with good reason. Just as someone's religion is a defining characteristic of who they are, so is someone's sexuality. Neither one of these things should be slandered by being classified as a mental illness or inherently wrong.

First off, I'm sorry that you got lambasted in the Abrahamic threads on this issue. We are'nt supposed to judge others...

It does counter "rules" the Abrahamic faiths were given, concerning such behavior. Regardless of what is thought, such behavior breaks the "rules" of the Abrahamic faiths.

Why heterosexuals are not asked why they are attracted to the opposite sex, goes without saying...doesn't it?

That is original design...you know yin and yang, physical components that fit together? That sort of thing.

That someone loves another, there is nothing wrong with that. Physically, there are only so many ways to express that love...and some are not so clear cut as others.

At the risk of being rude, I present the following:

Physically speaking, it is impossible for one seed bearer to fertilize another who is a seed bearer. Just as it is impossible for a seed recipient to fertilize another seed recipient.

Emotionally speaking, well one human can make another human's day, and life. And there is nothing wrong with that. It's when the "I want to make someone's life", becomes, I want to tell the whole world about it, and demand that the whole world accepts it", that trouble starts.

When the "gay" way interferes with the social structure that has been considered "normal" for the past few thousand years...then yes there is a problem.

Not everyone is 'enlightened', nor do they wish to be. And 10% does not have the right to force 90% to conform to its way.

As far as religion is concerned...You'd have to define which religion, and many accept the Homosexual way, but some do not.

some things to consider

v/r

Q

[kiwimac]

Quahom1,

I respectfully disagree. For thousands of years slavery was the norm, it has since been stood against and discarded as the abomination it is, polygamy, blood sacrifice, Genocide all these things have been a part of the "social structure" for many thousands of years.

They were supported by many religions AND THEY WERE WRONG. Just as they are in dealing with homosexuality.

Kiwimac

[Pathless]

Hey Q,

Thanks for the reply, and I hear where you are coming from. The kind of enculturation that you are referring to as the social structure and norms certainly does make homsexuality queer. A question to consider, though, is what are the value of these norms, what is the value of our social structure, if they cause people to suffer, or repress people from being who othey are?

Your statement, "Why heterosexuals are not asked why they are attracted to the opposite sex, goes without saying...doesn't it?" is precisely the problem at hand, from my perspective. I feel there is value in flipping the social norms around in order to consider how it might feel to be heterosexual in a homosexual world--which is why I posed the questions that I did. If we can flip it around and consider heterosexuality as the "queer" thing, we should be better able to empathize with homosexuals as people.

Certainly it would be strange and uncomfortable if we, as heterosexuals, were suddenly scrutinized, labeled, and stereotyped for our sexual preference; and this is the reality that homosexuals face every day. As heterosexuals, we would certainly be offended or hurt if people often told us that we were queer, or needed therapy, or needed to go to church or the mosque more often and pray for redemption. What if they told us that we just needed to trust God or try harder to be normal? Yet these are all very real situations that homosexuals face.

Q, you make indisputable points about the biology of reproduction. I think we can all agree that two gay men or gay women are not going to have any luck reproducing naturally. But does that make homosexuality unnatural or morally wrong? Heck, if humans continue to reproduce at the prolific rate that we are now, I'd say we should all welcome every homosexual that comes out of the closet into our communities; at least they will not be contributing to the population explosion. Indeed, they may be great candidates to help manage it through adoption, assuming that our legal systems and our moral principles can adapt enough to allow them to adopt.

Here's a funny story about gayness. A couple of weeks ago, I was working with some people on a farm. Don't worry... this story isn't going quite where you think it is. Anyway, we were working down by a stream and one of the guys I was working with suddenly said, "Uh oh. We've got a mating ritual going on up there." Now this was a horse farm, and my first thought was that one of the stallions was making googly eyes at one of the mares, or maybe trying to get through his pen. But when I looked up to where my friend was pointing, I saw the owners' two male dogs, one humping the other. My first thought was, "Whoa!! I thought both those dogs were male," and they are. My friend informed me that dogs do this--he reffered to it as an "expression of dominance"--while another friend who I told the story to later that day also didn't think it was nearly as off-the-wall as I had. "Oh," she said, "Yeah, dogs do that."

Now I don't think these dogs were strictly homosexual, mind you; that's not my point. Rather, my point is that here is a clear example of a homosexual encounter happening in nature. How then can we judge homosexual or bisexual humans as somehow aberrant from nature?

As far as heterosexuality even being the civilized norm for the past few thousand years, a couple of points:

• Humans have been on the planet for much longer than a couple of thousand years
  • Some estimates are 50,000; 100,000; even longer
  • A rough estimate on neolithic cultures would date back to c. 10,000 BCE
• Roman and Greek culture, the roots of western civilization, practiced homosexuality openly and widely; some internet resources:
  • http://members.aol.com/matrixwerx/gl.../greeklove.htm
  • http://www.utexas.edu/courses/cc348hubbard/index.php
  • http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/1979boswell.html
    

Personally, I don't feel that Roman or Greek culture are adequate cultural models for humans, but I do find it pertinent to the discussion that indeed these are the cultures that are the root of our modern western civilizations, and that they openly practiced a form of homosexuality.

[Pathless]

Originally Posted by Pathless

I think we can all agree that two gay men or gay women are not going to have any luck reproducing naturally.

It also occurs to me that with our technology, gay women could indeed bear children, with help from a sperm donor. My statement quoted above I guess is accurate, since I said "naturally," but I do want to recognize that a homosexual woman could bear a child. I believe that there are homosexual women who, being women, would very much like to experience motherhood.

[China Cat Sunflower]

This is a question that interests me: What is the evolutionary value of homosexuality? Why would the human species evolve a homosexual subset?

Anyone?

Chris

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

This is a question that interests me: What is the evolutionary value of homosexuality? Why would the human species evolve a homosexual subset?

Anyone?

Chris

There is an older thread on this topic here.

lunamoth

[China Cat Sunflower]

Thanks.

Chris

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by kiwimac

For thousands of years slavery was the norm, it has since been stood against and discarded as the abomination it is, polygamy, blood sacrifice, Genocide all these things have been a part of the "social structure" for many thousands of years.

I think there's an argument that would suggest that Free Markets have simply transformed slavery from one form to another as an employment tool. Slaves usually had to be provided for and looked after - food, shelter, protection. Now they are given "wages" instead. Thinking on Asian sweatshops to supply Western consumerism, I'm not sure we've actually progressed very well in this regard.

As for polygamy - well, in the "enlightened West" society frowns on polygamy, but is happy with casual sex. So we are somewhat close to hypocrisy in that society is happy to accept bonds with different partners (short-term or long-term), but just won't recognise it for tax purposes.

Blood sacrifice? In the ancient world this almost amounted to social care system - society sacrificed animals and provided food for all present. Nowadays, we just push tax dollars to government and presume somehow that they feed our own hungry.

As for genocide - I'm afraid events over the past few decades suggest this is just as much a matter of secular policy as any other.

Originally Posted by Pathless

It also occurs to me that with our technology, gay women could indeed bear children, with help from a sperm donor.

We are almost certainly going to see this become a common reality in future.

Originally Posted by Pathless

Roman and Greek culture, the roots of western civilization, practiced homosexuality openly and widely

The problem with the Greeks is that it wasn't so much homosexuality as much as institutional paedophilia. Western historians usually opt for the compromise term "pedastry". The education system placed young boys in the hands of old men, and sexually satisfying each other was considered integral to the overall learning process.


Just 2c.

[seattlegal]

The problem with the Greeks is that it wasn't so much homosexuality as much as institutional paedophilia. Western historians usually opt for the compromise term "pedastry". The education system placed young boys in the hands of old men, and sexually satisfying each other was considered integral to the overall learning process.

Sparta comes to mind.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

Sparta comes to mind.

I presume you mean that Sparta rebelled as a result of this practice? (among other things).

v/r

Q

[path_of_one]

Homosexuality was widespread in Sparta. There are a few cultures in the world in which homosexuality is the norm and heterosexuality is gross, abnormal, and constrained by lots of rules. There are many cultures in which homosexuality, while not the norm, is considered completely acceptable. In fact, only about 35% of cultures (based on cross-cultural research) worldwide have homosexuality as something that is not accepted, should be kept hidden, etc. The majority accept homosexuals and do not think it is abnormal or should be clandestine activity.

I think there are obvious historical reasons why the Abrahamic religions did not favor or accept homosexuality, notably the constant battle to retain a community and keep the traditions going in the face of cultural and political oppression.

I think our clearest indication of the evolutionary value of homosexuality in humans is also clear in Bonobos. Sex in bonobos, and in humans, is not just (or even primarily) about procreation. Procreation is, of course, neccessary, but sex has become a means of comfort, bonding, stress reduction, etc. in the human and bonobo species (even more among bonobos than humans!). The more this is the case, the more homosexual sex becomes a positive evolutionary force, since in social species bonding and tension reduction contributes to a longer, healthier life. It is no wonder that many of the societies in which homosexuality, or at least a period of life that is homosexual, is not only accepted but expected and encouraged are societies in which war and warrior groups are very important. Homosexuality among warriors (as in Sparta) fosters strong emotional bonds and greater perseverence and ferocity in fighting, as well as providing comfort and stress reduction in very trying circumstances far from home.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by path_of_one

Homosexuality was widespread in Sparta. There are a few cultures in the world in which homosexuality is the norm and heterosexuality is gross, abnormal, and constrained by lots of rules. There are many cultures in which homosexuality, while not the norm, is considered completely acceptable. In fact, only about 35% of cultures (based on cross-cultural research) worldwide have homosexuality as something that is not accepted, should be kept hidden, etc. The majority accept homosexuals and do not think it is abnormal or should be clandestine activity.

I think there are obvious historical reasons why the Abrahamic religions did not favor or accept homosexuality, notably the constant battle to retain a community and keep the traditions going in the face of cultural and political oppression.

I think our clearest indication of the evolutionary value of homosexuality in humans is also clear in Bonobos. Sex in bonobos, and in humans, is not just (or even primarily) about procreation. Procreation is, of course, neccessary, but sex has become a means of comfort, bonding, stress reduction, etc. in the human and bonobo species (even more among bonobos than humans!). The more this is the case, the more homosexual sex becomes a positive evolutionary force, since in social species bonding and tension reduction contributes to a longer, healthier life. It is no wonder that many of the societies in which homosexuality, or at least a period of life that is homosexual, is not only accepted but expected and encouraged are societies in which war and warrior groups are very important. Homosexuality among warriors (as in Sparta) fosters strong emotional bonds and greater perseverence and ferocity in fighting, as well as providing comfort and stress reduction in very trying circumstances far from home.

Oy, I like women, I'm a "warrior", I want my wife (woman). I've never looked at another male, for a sexual outlet (it never dawned on me to consider such).I have been without for up to three years at a time. I dis-agree.

v/r

Q

[China Cat Sunflower]

In considering the role of sexuality in the ancient human cultures, and as mentioned in bonobos culture--how homosexuality wasn't or isn't the taboo that we've become accustomed to, I'm wondering if the evolutionary, or cultural value of homosexuality and same-gender relationships isn't diminished by becoming an immitation of heterosexual relationships. For example, in the Roman army, where homosexual relations were encouraged as a morale building activity, and probably to cut down on problems associated with military men raping women, it doesn't seem that there would be men wanting to marry other men men. That wasn't the function of the activity. So perhaps the idea that one must be either homo or heterosexual, accompanied by the idea that the defacto relationship should be an imitation of monogamous heterosexual coupling, plus the associated patriarchal taboos have negated some of the value of homosexuality in modern societies?

Chris