The Simple Reason For Religious Homophobia

[threnody]

Homosexuality is nothing new.

The ancient Greeks routinely engaged in homosexual activities, but the terms "heterosexual" and "homosexual" were used to describe activities, not identities.

With the growing popularity (in ancient times), of organized cults, the original leaders had to find specific ways to increase the size of the organization.

What better way than to declare homosexuality a "sin"? Less homosexual acts means more heterosexual acts, which transfers into more new little cultists every nine months.

Homosexuality is not wrong. It's a tool to create more followers of a cult.

[jbg]

Homosexuality is not wrong. It's a tool to create more followers of a cult.

Better put, homosexual activity serves no biological or species-preservation purpose. Also, it leads to the kind of misconduct as characterized Sodom and Gomorrah.

[Drea]

Homosexuality is not wrong. It's a tool to create more followers of a cult.

Better put, homosexual activity serves no biological or species-preservation purpose. Also, it leads to the kind of misconduct as characterized Sodom and Gomorrah.

How do you know the bible is not a work of fiction? You base your beliefs on a novel, a book written by human beings.

Soddom and Gomorrah is a story, a tale, like Stephen King's books.

[jbg]

How do you know the bible is not a work of fiction? You base your beliefs on a novel, a book written by human beings.

Soddom and Gomorrah is a story, a tale, like Stephen King's books.

The rest of my post still stands. And as far as the Bible being a work of fiction, no doubt communities with those exact names did not exist, and no doubt Lot's wife did not turn to a pillar of salt. However, the moral of the story still stands.

[WestViking]

Homosexuality is not wrong. It's a tool to create more followers of a cult.

Better put, homosexual activity serves no biological or species-preservation purpose. Also, it leads to the kind of misconduct as characterized Sodom and Gomorrah.

How do you know the bible is not a work of fiction? You base your beliefs on a novel, a book written by human beings.

Soddom and Gomorrah is a story, a tale, like Stephen King's books.

The Bible is indeed novel as the works of men is concerned. I know of no other history of religious belief that has withstood the tests of time and doubt to anywhere near the same extent. Christians, that is believers in Christ and His teachings, drove the civilization of Europe and the continents of North and South America. That is quite an accomplishment for an alleged work of fiction.

[jbg]

The Bible is indeed novel as the works of men is concerned. I know of no other history of religious belief that has withstood the tests of time and doubt to anywhere near the same extent. Christians, that is believers in Christ and His teachings, drove the civilization of Europe and the continents of North and South America. That is quite an accomplishment for an alleged work of fiction.

And once Christians got the ability to read it for themselves, courtesy of the printing press and growing liberty, Christianity became truly a religion of peace and light to the world. It took some time and, as my people can attest the process wasn't even, smooth or perfect, but on balance the Bible has promoted true greatness for man and his endeavors as a species.

[threnody]

Better put, homosexual activity serves no biological or species-preservation purpose. Also, it leads to the kind of misconduct as characterized Sodom and Gomorrah.

And who says, exactly, that all sexual acts must ultimately culminate in reproduction?

Better yet, who are you, or any Christian/Muslim/Whatever actually, to dictate what constitutes as "misconduct"?

[Guest Warwick Green]

Better put, homosexual activity serves no biological or species-preservation purpose. Also, it leads to the kind of misconduct as characterized Sodom and Gomorrah.

And who says, exactly, that all sexual acts must ultimately culminate in reproduction?

Better yet, who are you, or any Christian/Muslim/Whatever actually, to dictate what constitutes as "misconduct"?

I engage in a number of sexual activtities (all heterosexual) many of which couldn't possibly result in reproduction. And I certainly don't consider that I am guilty of "misconduct"

[Drea]

Good website for us non-believers...

noreligion.ca

The purpose of this website is to promote the idea that religion (or superstition) has impeded human progress for thousands of years, and that we as a species would be better off without it. My personal opinions on the matter are:

There is no god.

Life has no intrinsic meaning.

The universe was not designed; it has no purpose.

When you die, you cease to exist.

"Faith" is a euphemism for superstition.

"Religion" is a euphemism for cult.

More blood has been shed in the name of religion than any other cause.

The contents of this website may be disturbing or offensive. If reading the above points makes you angry or uncomfortable, then perhaps you should stop reading now - but before you leave, consider this: if your beliefs cannot stand up to scrutiny, then what good are they?

[threnody]

Better put, homosexual activity serves no biological or species-preservation purpose. Also, it leads to the kind of misconduct as characterized Sodom and Gomorrah.

And who says, exactly, that all sexual acts must ultimately culminate in reproduction?

Better yet, who are you, or any Christian/Muslim/Whatever actually, to dictate what constitutes as "misconduct"?

I engage in a number of sexual activtities (all heterosexual) many of which couldn't possibly result in reproduction. And I certainly don't consider that I am guilty of "misconduct"

This is also true.

[Leafless]

Better put, homosexual activity serves no biological or species-preservation purpose. Also, it leads to the kind of misconduct as characterized Sodom and Gomorrah.

And who says, exactly, that all sexual acts must ultimately culminate in reproduction?

Better yet, who are you, or any Christian/Muslim/Whatever actually, to dictate what constitutes as "misconduct"?

Check out the definition of 'pervert'.

[Leafless]

Good website for us non-believers...

noreligion.ca

The purpose of this website is to promote the idea that religion (or superstition) has impeded human progress for thousands of years, and that we as a species would be better off without it. My personal opinions on the matter are:

There is no god.

Life has no intrinsic meaning.

The universe was not designed; it has no purpose.

When you die, you cease to exist.

"Faith" is a euphemism for superstition.

"Religion" is a euphemism for cult.

More blood has been shed in the name of religion than any other cause.

The contents of this website may be disturbing or offensive. If reading the above points makes you angry or uncomfortable, then perhaps you should stop reading now - but before you leave, consider this: if your beliefs cannot stand up to scrutiny, then what good are they?

Religion has worked for many years CONTROLLING the masses.

Have it your way we will all be barbecuing one another for dinner.

[Guest Warwick Green]

Better put, homosexual activity serves no biological or species-preservation purpose. Also, it leads to the kind of misconduct as characterized Sodom and Gomorrah.

And who says, exactly, that all sexual acts must ultimately culminate in reproduction?

Better yet, who are you, or any Christian/Muslim/Whatever actually, to dictate what constitutes as "misconduct"?

Check out the definition of 'pervert'.

And who determines what is perverted?

• organized religion (provided they can agree among themselves)
  
• the state, through its legislators
  
• each individual according to his own morality
  

[Drea]

Good website for us non-believers...

noreligion.ca

The purpose of this website is to promote the idea that religion (or superstition) has impeded human progress for thousands of years, and that we as a species would be better off without it. My personal opinions on the matter are:

There is no god.

Life has no intrinsic meaning.

The universe was not designed; it has no purpose.

When you die, you cease to exist.

"Faith" is a euphemism for superstition.

"Religion" is a euphemism for cult.

More blood has been shed in the name of religion than any other cause.

The contents of this website may be disturbing or offensive. If reading the above points makes you angry or uncomfortable, then perhaps you should stop reading now - but before you leave, consider this: if your beliefs cannot stand up to scrutiny, then what good are they?

Religion has worked for many years CONTROLLING the masses.

Have it your way we will all be barbecuing one another for dinner.

Did you even check out the website or is this a knee-jerk reaction?

We instinctively don't wantonly kill one another. Basic "morality" is inate in our species as it is in all animal species.

[Leafless]

We instinctively don't wantonly kill one another. Basic "morality" is inate in our species as it is in all animal species.

Oh sure!

Close down law enforcement agencies in our modern law abiding countries for a single week throughout the world and see what happens.

[M.Dancer]

Homosexuality is not wrong. It's a tool to create more followers of a cult.

Better put, homosexual activity serves no biological or species-preservation purpose. Also, it leads to the kind of misconduct as characterized Sodom and Gomorrah.

What? Inhospitality to guests?

Source please.

[Leafless]

Better put, homosexual activity serves no biological or species-preservation purpose. Also, it leads to the kind of misconduct as characterized Sodom and Gomorrah.

And who says, exactly, that all sexual acts must ultimately culminate in reproduction?

Better yet, who are you, or any Christian/Muslim/Whatever actually, to dictate what constitutes as "misconduct"?

Check out the definition of 'pervert'.

And who determines what is perverted?

• organized religion (provided they can agree among themselves)
  
• the state, through its legislators
  
• each individual according to his own morality
  

This is a good question considering charter rights trumps views dictated by Christianity concerning all of society.

This is exactly why we need referendums in THIS particular country to answer questions such as this to form an absolute legal basis to create laws for the protection of society.

[Figleaf]

How do you know the bible is not a work of fiction? You base your beliefs on a novel, a book written by human beings.

Soddom and Gomorrah is a story, a tale, like Stephen King's books.

The rest of my post still stands. And as far as the Bible being a work of fiction, no doubt communities with those exact names did not exist, and no doubt Lot's wife did not turn to a pillar of salt. However, the moral of the story still stands.

That makes no sense. The activities in Sodom are said to be 'wrong' because the story says God said so. But if the story is wrong about Lot's wife, how can you know it's not wrong about what God thinks?

[Figleaf]

Religion has worked for many years CONTROLLING the masses.

That's what Karl Marx said.

[newbie]

The Bible is indeed novel as the works of men is concerned. I know of no other history of religious belief that has withstood the tests of time and doubt to anywhere near the same extent. Christians, that is believers in Christ and His teachings, drove the civilization of Europe and the continents of North and South America. That is quite an accomplishment for an alleged work of fiction.

The trouble is that the Bible has changed tremendously thru the ages due to the politics at the time. There isn't even a single original manuscript. Plus we learn what our parents and teachers teach us. There are tons of books that survived that are a lot older than the Bible (ancient Greek classics, Gilgamesh, to name a few). And why is it there are so many different Christian faiths, even with a different slant on "his" words? To me this is a bunch of tales handed down with virtually no proof to back them up. Other than religious documents, where is the proof that Jesus even existed?

[M.Dancer]

The Bible is indeed novel as the works of men is concerned. I know of no other history of religious belief that has withstood the tests of time and doubt to anywhere near the same extent. Christians, that is believers in Christ and His teachings, drove the civilization of Europe and the continents of North and South America. That is quite an accomplishment for an alleged work of fiction.

The trouble is that the Bible has changed tremendously thru the ages due to the politics at the time. There isn't even a single original manuscript. Plus we learn what our parents and teachers teach us. There are tons of books that survived that are a lot older than the Bible (ancient Greek classics, Gilgamesh, to name a few). And why is it there are so many different Christian faiths, even with a different slant on "his" words? To me this is a bunch of tales handed down with virtually no proof to back them up. Other than religious documents, where is the proof that Jesus even existed?

tee hee........how many original manuscripts survive of the anciant greek classics?

[jbg]

Better put, homosexual activity serves no biological or species-preservation purpose. Also, it leads to the kind of misconduct as characterized Sodom and Gomorrah.

And who says, exactly, that all sexual acts must ultimately culminate in reproduction?

Better yet, who are you, or any Christian/Muslim/Whatever actually, to dictate what constitutes as "misconduct"?

I engage in a number of sexual activtities (all heterosexual) many of which couldn't possibly result in reproduction. And I certainly don't consider that I am guilty of "misconduct"

But the relationship can result in reproduction, or could have at some point.

[threnody]

We instinctively don't wantonly kill one another. Basic "morality" is inate in our species as it is in all animal species.

Oh sure!

Close down law enforcement agencies in our modern law abiding countries for a single week throughout the world and see what happens.

Oh please, it's an evolutionary advantage to not wantonly kill. Members of a group will fear for their safety in the presence of a wanton killer, and thus the killer will be segregated from the group, not passing on their genes.

It's in man's best interest to not kill one another.

I engage in a number of sexual activtities (all heterosexual) many of which couldn't possibly result in reproduction. And I certainly don't consider that I am guilty of "misconduct"

But the relationship can result in reproduction, or could have at some point.

Redundant. You're saying that homosexual activities are wrong in part because they do not result in reproduction.

Neither does oral or manual sexual activities.

Are those wrong too?

[Guest Warwick Green]

Better put, homosexual activity serves no biological or species-preservation purpose. Also, it leads to the kind of misconduct as characterized Sodom and Gomorrah.

And who says, exactly, that all sexual acts must ultimately culminate in reproduction?

Better yet, who are you, or any Christian/Muslim/Whatever actually, to dictate what constitutes as "misconduct"?

I engage in a number of sexual activtities (all heterosexual) many of which couldn't possibly result in reproduction. And I certainly don't consider that I am guilty of "misconduct"

But the relationship can result in reproduction, or could have at some point.

We made damned certain that wouldn't happen.

[Guest Warwick Green]

We instinctively don't wantonly kill one another. Basic "morality" is inate in our species as it is in all animal species.

Oh sure!

Close down law enforcement agencies in our modern law abiding countries for a single week throughout the world and see what happens.

Oh please, it's an evolutionary advantage to not wantonly kill. Members of a group will fear for their safety in the presence of a wanton killer, and thus the killer will be segregated from the group, not passing on their genes.

It's in man's best interest to not kill one another.

I engage in a number of sexual activtities (all heterosexual) many of which couldn't possibly result in reproduction. And I certainly don't consider that I am guilty of "misconduct"

But the relationship can result in reproduction, or could have at some point.

Redundant. You're saying that homosexual activities are wrong in part because they do not result in reproduction.

Neither does oral or manual sexual activities.

Are those wrong too?

By no means all relationships have reproduction in mind - some don't as a matter of choice, others because cannot have children for medical reasons or because the woman has passed her reproductive period.