Homophobic logic makes ZERO sense!

They believe the Bible is true. To them, it is factual. To a Christian, the Bible is not an opinion. It is absolute fact. Why would you ever ask someone to deny or turn against their personal religious beliefs, just because it would make you feel better?

Divorce is not a sin, it is just conditional. Premarital sex is a sin, but does not mean that you cannot marry the person that you had sex with. The Bible doesn't say that. The Bible does say that homosexuality is a sin, it does not leave it open to interpretation.

I don't get how it is wrong for them to ask you to change (and I agree that it is), but it is okay for you to ask them to deliberately disobey the God that they believe they have a deep and meaningful relationship with...?

Please keep in mind that I am a lesbian. I am also a Christian. I believe that everyone deserves love, tolerance, and an equal amount of respect. No matter what.

 

I'm a cradle Catholic and this is only how the catholic view has been explained to me - and there's probably still controversy on exactly what the Catholic Church teaches. Just a forewarning.

In the Catholic Church, homosexuality is natural - either born that way or developed. It's considered as permanent. However, gay sex cannot produce children. A big part of Catholic marriage is to produce children, which is why no birth control, gay sex, or masturbation. Likewise, if a man is castrated or a woman cannot be penetrated or something similar, they can't get married in the Catholic Church. Some Catholics quote the bible on homosexuality, but most of the Catholics I've talked to use the meaning of marriage argument. Also, gay sex is considered bad because it's premarital sex, since gays can't get married in the Catholic Church.

Again, this is just what I've been taught. The denying service thing has never been explained to me and I've never met someone who agrees with it - yay liberal state! - though I do know it exists.

 

I agree with this. I'm not a christian, but if someone was quoting something written ages ago and using it to defend his views today I'd question it. When people who cling to old beliefs and traditions can accept Science, then homosexuality shouldn't be so far off for them to deny.

 

Who said that Christians don't accept science? We just believe that all of the natural laws were created by God.

The Christians I know, including myself obviously, do not have any personal problem with gay people. It is in the Bible that it is a sin, so it came from God, so we accept it.

Saying that something must be wrong because it is old is a little short-sighted and makes pretty much no sense. Freedom, justice, liberty, democracy, education, social welfare, medical advancement... all old ideas. Very old. That does not make them any less relevant or important. The declaration of independence is old. So is the emancipation proclamation. How old does that have to be before we start allowing slavery again? If something is true, in the way that the Bible is true, age does not change that. Again, why are Christians wrong for holding to their convictions, but you are not?

 

I'm a Hindu. I'm sorry if my post sounded anti-christian, but it's not. I was talking about everyone. My religion, Hinduism, has old texts too. I've had some people throw verses from them in my face in some situations. I'm referring to those as well.

The declaration of independence is old. But it has amendments doesn't it? My country has a constitution, but it has amendments too. I consider the purpose of amendments to change laws if required because circumstances change. I don't condone any old document or religious text. I just think that some things can't be referenced to them since times have changed.

 

That's something of a false equivalence. Their demands would require that I suppress a fundamental aspect of my life. Demanding that others not interfere in my own life is not nearly as intrusive as their attempts to interfere. The harm done to me would be significant. The harm done to them is arguably nonexistent, but if there is a harm, it is certainly less likely to detrimentally impact their lives.

I do not seek to compel them to change their beliefs, I wish not to be beholden to those beliefs which I do not share. I'm not asking they forsake their god, I am asking that they keep the rules of a god I have absolutely no belief in out of my life.

And if I'm to be honest, when religion clashes with the principles of law and democracy, the latter should come out on top. If they consider that a betrayal of their god, I don't actually care. That cannot be considered a compelling reason to limit another's liberties and rights in a secular society.

They are of course free to oppose homosexuality itself or whatever less extreme position they might have (regarding gay parenthood or marriage or whatever), just as I am free to criticise their religion. But if I cannot stop them from practicing their religion, they cannot come into my life and make me do with it as they please.

---------- Post added 31st Jan 2016 at 07:53 PM ----------

Also, to address the OP, I don't think it is fair to say that homophobic logic is without sense. If argued honestly, homophobia is cruel, barbaric and goes against almost every principle of human rights and civilised society. But that doesn't mean it is without sense.

It's just very difficult for homophobes in liberal societies to openly dismiss so many values they care about, which they would have to, so it leads to a lot of contradictory beliefs. Freedom for some and not others, a fundamental misunderstanding of what constitutes freedom of religion or a bizarre devotion to a very underdeveloped form of Darwinism are usually staples of that sort of logically self-defeating homophobia.

 

Homophobic depends on a persons viewpoint, same as religions. The top few entries I've read is based on religion, but what if the person is a freethinker/atheist? Especially for the later, it's more a case of "homosexuality is unnatural" instead of anything else. That being the case, there are also other factors which affect a person's viewpoint on homosexuality- their families and friends, or in general, their surroundings.

If they point to anti-homosexuality, the person will generally follow the same path, and same goes for those with pro-homosexuality views. As for their reasons, if they don't rely on religion, it's simply because it's weird/gross. In the end, what they perceive is only explainable to them. Stupid or not, it isn't like we can change those views.

 

For starters, homophobes are rarely arguing from a position of logic and reason, but rather are arguing from a position of 'gut feeling' or belief that they then go and 'backfill' with some cobbled together chain of 'logic' or 'reason' after the fact.

Re those arguing from a religious direction (and working from Christianity as an example since that is generally the faith being referred to in these kinds of discussions):

First off, it is somewhat incorrect to say that 'Christians' believe X or Y about much of anything since 'Christians' are not a monolithic group who all believe the exact same thing on every topic. That's why there are so many different Christian denominations and why there are individual Christians who believe things at odds with their denomination or the stated policies of their church.

There are Christian denominations that are supportive of LGBT people and some that will perform same-sex marriages.

As a side note, there are some Muslim mosques or groups that are also supportive of LGBT people and will perform same-sex weddings. Presumably there is some body of interpretation of Islamic teachings and scriptures that they feel supports this.

Second, when it does come to people citing bibilical proscriptions against homosexuality, it is easy to find and point out whole lists of things the bible either supports or condemns that most modern people do or don't do (e.g., keeping slaves), most likely including the homophobe in question.

Here's two lists of 'don't do' right here (one of them rather less serious than the other): LINK and LINK. You can find many more with a quick google search.

This of course raises the question of why some things (e.g., homosexuality) are horrible sins that must not be done, while others are either apparently fine now or are ignored as 'old cultural things and not really against the bible'. If this argument is made, then either the homophobe has to explain how the 'unerring word of God' has apparently changed over time or why and how the determination was made that the things they already do should be fine with God, while other things apparently are still a no-no.

Skipping all the intermediate hoop jumping it generally boils down to massive hypocrisy or their gut feeling ('man on man sex is gross!!!!' Or maybe 'man on man sex is HOT!!!'? - given how many homophobes keep turning out to be gay) that they are rationalizing after the fact using their religious belief.

Moving on to the issue of atheists or others who are against LGBT on the grounds that it is not 'natural':

If someone says this, I would point out that they are the beneficiary of an entire host of 'unnatural' acts and constructions, including vaccines, medications, pain killers, surgery (if you think it is 'natural' for us to reach into your premature baby's body, rearrange their organs into alignment, and then keep them alive in an incubator until they can survive on their own, I'd love to hear your reasoning), computers, cars, planes, electrical grids, water treatment systems, birth control etc. etc. etc.

Many of these things have the effect of allowing people who are supposedly not 'fit' in the supposedly evolutionary sense (because evolution is much more complex than this and also doesn't operate with a plan or goals or standards) to survive and thrive and contribute to our civilization (e.g., Stephen Hawking, or Alan Turing if you want an actual gay example), often in ways that it could be argued are far greater than simply producing another child or two. And of course, there's no actual reason that LGBT people can't produce children if they feel so inclined and are sufficiently determined about it.

Again, the 'atheist' or 'scientific' version of the homophobe argument is just a gut reaction that is then (very imperfectly) trying to rationalize itself retroactively. No real logic is being used and so trying to find logical 'sense' in it is generally just a waste of time.

Todd

 

What I find makes zero sense, is the fact they 'Believe the Bible is 100% true", they just don't follow what their own Bible says when it is uncomfortable for them. Like not cutting your facial hair, not eating Pork or not wearing clothing of two different fabrics. In the New Testament it's love everyone and don't pass judgement, but there they are, doing it.

This type of attitude(by Homophobic Christians) makes it very very tough for gay Christians to feel accepted and loved by God, and many do turn to other accepting religions because of this. It also makes Christians who do not believe this, feel they have to defend their religion as well, which is not ok or fair by any means. It's very difficult to separate religion from Homophobia, when they site Biblical passages(taken out of context) or 'God says....' when they attempt to argue why it's wrong to be gay.

 

I think it all comes down to interpretation.

The problem with these fundamentalist sects is that they tend to cherry pick what sin they're going to broadcast and what they aren't. Fundamentalist preachers talk a ton of crap about gay people and how the Leviticus condemns homosexuality (Leviticus 20:13), yet ignore the other verses in that same chapter that condemn eating pork (Leviticus 11:7-8), shellfish (Leviticus 11:10), and wearing fabric (Leviticus 13:47-59). This blatant hypocrisy is something that needs to be addressed.

Not only that, but Leviticus also orders homosexuals to be executed:

If you are going to interpret Leviticus literally to the bone, then you must also execute the homosexuals because that is what it says to do. So fundamentalists really should go on a killing spree in that case. Finally, Leviticus only talks about a man sleeping with another man. It doesn't address female homosexuality.

My two cents is that the Bible is a reflection of the homophobic culture and customs at the time. It needs to be taken into context otherwise there is going to be a lot of confusion and problems.

 

I've always strongly thought that many homophobic people rarely even consider why they are homophobic. It's just the way they were raised: everyone around them is, so they are too. Their religion says they have to be, so they are. But do they put thought into it? Have they actually reflected on life and the nature of their beliefs and come to the conclusion that homosexuality is a deviant, immoral perversion? Or are they simply going through the motions? The fact that many people lose their homophobia when exposed to LGBT people and allies shows that it's certainly mutable. Maybe it just takes a different type of life experience to root it out.