Why so many religions have issues with homosexuality?

[Mr. Clean]

Originally Posted by JMRouse

Here's the deal. Most religious text were written a long time ago and were not in line with modern sensibility.

That's a good and, I think generally valid point, however I am not sure how much of an explanation it provides for this specific question. Historically, attitudes towards homosexuality varied considerably between different cultures and during different times. As far as I know, condemnation of the phenomenon has not been significantly more widespread than acceptance or encouragement. In my opinion, it is therefore still an interesting question how many of the major contemporary religions ended up treating it as a sin.

In the case of the Abrahamic religions, part of the explanation might be that they are very closely related and simply happened to evolve in a cultural environment with a negative attitude towards homosexuality.

 

[munchausen]

My spurious, untested hypothesis: men in primitive societies where might mostly made right were afraid that guys who wanted to **** guys would **** them. Probably not an unfounded fear, either. That would explain why lesbianism is less of a big deal.

 

[Jerome]

Whereas today idiotism seems to be the smallest deal.

 

[bringusingoodale]

Don't forget the ick factor, never underestimate the ick factor.

 

[c00kz]

Originally Posted by Mr. Clean

That's a good and, I think generally valid point, however I am not sure how much of an explanation it provides for this specific question. Historically, attitudes towards homosexuality varied considerably between different cultures and during different times. As far as I know, condemnation of the phenomenon has not been significantly more widespread than acceptance or encouragement. In my opinion, it is therefore still an interesting question how many of the major contemporary religions ended up treating it as a sin.

In the case of the Abrahamic religions, part of the explanation might be that they are very closely related and simply happened to evolve in a cultural environment with a negative attitude towards homosexuality.

Just wanted to add this is predominantly a European Christian phenomenon. Historically, homosexuality was pretty tolerated socially in the mideast/Islamic world; the assumption was men (and maybe all people) were inherently bisexual

In any case attitudes about homosexuality are largely social, but people profess their attitudes to be derived from their texts and w/e

And it's probably misleading to say "so many" religions have a problem with homosexuality. Perhaps the "most visible" abrahamic ones do, but I don't think the more spiritual philosophies involve themselves with social mores and fam structure as much as the big three

 

[bringusingoodale]

Originally Posted by c00kz

Just wanted to add this is predominantly a European Christian phenomenon. Historically, homosexuality was pretty tolerated socially in the mideast/Islamic world; the assumption was men (and maybe all people) were inherently bisexual In any case attitudes about homosexuality are largely social, but people profess their attitudes to be derived from their texts and w/e And it's probably misleading to say "so many" religions have a problem with homosexuality. Perhaps the "most visible" abrahamic ones do, but I don't think the more spiritual philosophies involve themselves with social mores and fam structure as much as the big three
Puh-lease. Just because some tribe in some small island once upon a time, before they were "oppressed", thought men were mystically connected to one another in the act of sex doesn't mean we should rethink Christendom and its silly ways.

 

[in stitches]

Originally Posted by tagutcow

Wasn't Levitican law intended to be parochial for the Israelites? Wasn't it all essentially voided with the new covenant?

to me this is more

than the op

to the op i dont think that a truly honest answer to that question can be given without being offensive.

 

[nich]

I wrote out this very long response as to why I believe, as a straight, catholic man, that homosexual/bisexual/transgender people should be treated equal, but I realized at the end that only ignorant people hate others based on superficial standards and will not be persuaded by reason via a fashion forum.

If someone would like to have an intelligent conversation that doesn't include "Never forget the Ick factor", then by all means engage me. For those of you who hate for the sake of needing to hate someone to get through your life,

Proverbs 26:4-5
Do not answer a fool according to his folly, lest you also be like him. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes.

 

[c00kz]

Originally Posted by bringusingoodale

Puh-lease. Just because some tribe in some small island once upon a time, before they were "oppressed", thought men were mystically connected to one another in the act of sex doesn't mean we should rethink Christendom and its silly ways.

Uh I wasn't making a value statement on any religion at all. I was only stating the social aversion to homosexuality was a historically euro-christian societal thing (opposed to elsewhere-christian thing). Increased exposure to this attitude through colonialism and stuff brought about an internal change in attitude in a big religious-social group. With this comment I was trying to make the point that the anti-homosexuality the OP assumes many religions endorse has not been a permanent and unchanging feature of those religions; in some cases they're as modern as homosexuality

Pederasty and general homosexual behavior was passive and slightly "decadent", but certainly not as spiritualized as "mystic connections through sex". I imagine it didn't exceed a "meh, free **" attitude in most cases

 

[pvrhye]

Originally Posted by tagutcow

Wasn't Levitican law intended to be parochial for the Israelites? Wasn't it all essentially voided with the new covenant?

Doesn't Jesus at the end of the sermon on the mount say something to the tune of "not one jot will pass from the law" regarding old testament law?

 

[ThatGuy]

Most peeps don't like men with CB.

 

[ShaneB]

Originally Posted by munchausen

My spurious, untested hypothesis: men in primitive societies where might mostly made right were afraid that guys who wanted to **** guys would **** them. Probably not an unfounded fear, either. That would explain why lesbianism is less of a big deal.
Wrong given the Classical civilisations were largely tolerant towards homosexuality.

 

[ShaneB]

Originally Posted by c00kz

Just wanted to add this is predominantly a European Christian phenomenon. Historically, homosexuality was pretty tolerated socially in the mideast/Islamic world; the assumption was men (and maybe all people) were inherently bisexual

In any case attitudes about homosexuality are largely social, but people profess their attitudes to be derived from their texts and w/e

And it's probably misleading to say "so many" religions have a problem with homosexuality. Perhaps the "most visible" abrahamic ones do, but I don't think the more spiritual philosophies involve themselves with social mores and fam structure as much as the big three

Completely wrong. Infact, you've got it the wrong around: there's no evidence whatsoever that homosexuality was tolerated in the middle east, whilst there's plenty - in conjunction with native European religions - that pre-Christian Europeans largely held an ambivalent view of homosexuality. Negative perceptions of homosexuals gained currency with the importation of the Semitic religion Christianity. European paganism - from what we know of it - didn't have any doctrine that condemned homosexuals; the same obviously can't be said of the Semitic religions.


And to answer the OPs question - there are two answers:

1) It countermines the morality of God, in which case the reason it is held negatively is that it affronts the omnibenevlonece of God.

2) It's a product of societal context at the inception of the religions.


Take your pick.

 

[munchausen]

Originally Posted by ShaneB

Wrong given the Classical civilisations were largely tolerant towards homosexuality.

The Classical civilizations weren't what I would call "primitive"

 

[indesertum]

Originally Posted by tagutcow

Wasn't Levitican law intended to be parochial for the Israelites? Wasn't it all essentially voided with the new covenant?

Originally Posted by Fang66

It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." (Luke 16:17)
you left out the verse before and after it

16 “The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John. Since that time, the good news of the kingdom of God is being preached, and everyone is forcing their way into it. 17 It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law. 18 “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

here's the ivp commentary for it

Then Jesus sets the remark in a larger context. Nothing about the law will pass away. What does this mean? In the context of law and promise, it must mean that it is the kingdom program that realizes the law. Authority is associated with that program (Banks 1975:214-15). The goal of the law is Jesus. Through him its promise is realized. The verse must be read contextually. The term law in Luke-Acts has various functions depending on the context of its use. In fact, to consider Luke's view of the law is to take up a question that surfaces again and again in the New Testament (for views on New Testament handling of the law, see Bahnsen et al. 1993). In Luke three themes dominate. First, in terms of relating to God and to others, the law instructs and gives moral guidance (16:27-31). Second, when law is considered in terms of promise, as in this passage, it stands fulfilled in Jesus. Third, law has passed away when it is considered as individual laws or what the Jews would call "halakoth," practices that identify a person as Jewish as opposed to Gentile. Rites like circumcision and concern about clean foods are no longer necessary (Acts 10--11, 15). These three senses summarize how Luke sees the law; each time the term appears, the reader should examine the context to see which force is being applied (Blomberg 1984).

here's a similar verse in matthew in context

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

i guess my central point is that while the leviticus laws stand valid as moral guidance they are not civic law for christians as leviticus law is fulfilled in christ you could say cherry picking and whatever, but christ calls for an almost impossible adherence to leviticus law exceeding what is explicitly written and instead of adhering to the law to the letter, striving to fulfill its purpose. in some cases this means understanding what the law intended. some laws (eg circumcision) are no longer applicable. for example this is in mark

23 One Sabbath Jesus was going through the grainfields, and as his disciples walked along, they began to pick some heads of grain. 24 The Pharisees said to him, “Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?” 25 He answered, “Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need? 26 In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions.” 27 Then he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. 28 So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.”