'Nothing beyond the constructs to cover the abyss...

[Gob]

Casting aside our preconceptions and feelings, one might ask, Why do virtually all religious traditions condemn male homosexual acts? It seems harmless. It doesn't bother anyone. It gives enjoyment to at least one of the participants. And in spite of the fact that it has apparently gone on in virtually all societies to one extent or another throughout human history, there is a universal consensus that it is something to be discouraged and condemned.

Basically as religion has always used sexuality, and hate, to control people, and giving them gays as hate objects makes religious non thinkers feel good about themselves.

[loCAtek]

That's fanaticism, not religion.

[thestoat]

There is a huge difference between a broadly-held scientific misconception (earth as center of the universe, etc), and a consensus moral judgment

Moral judgements are always of the time and change depending on location and year. It used to be morally acceptable to burn witches. Some societies - today - consider it morally acceptable to chop your hand off for stealing: others not.

Moralists and ethicists (i.e., religious leaders) can learn from generations of experience to ascertain whether certain behaviors that seem harmless might be detrimental to the persons and the community in the longer term.

When you say "i.e. religious leaders" - I believe you mean "e.g." - you are surely not saying only religious leaders are moralists and ethicists? And anyway - that lot have been wrong for millennia - based on modern day values of "don't kill others just because they are different". Why do you believe that after thousands of years of preaching hate and intolerance they have suddenly got it right?

there is a universal consensus that it is something to be discouraged and condemned.

I don't believe there is such a universal consensus. I have some christian friends who are happy to "live and let live", and I can't say I know anyone who is anti gay. Sure, that isn't a massive sample, and I am aware of the bile against the gay community by many in the church, but I would certainly not think it is a universal consensus.

The consensus on this board (and on the political Left) seems to be: "Every religious and moral leader in recorded history was simply wrong on this point."

Actually, based on what the majority of religious and moral leaders have believed through history, I'd say they were wrong on most points - not just this one

[Big RR]

True, they were, and in some cases continue to be, wrong in condemning heresy, otherwise known as a difference of opinion. Since more people were killed for heresy than for any other supposedly immoral behavior across the religious board, why would you care what they thought about homosexuaity and sodomy?

[Sean]

That's fanaticism, not religion.

Then the Pope is a fanatic rather than a religious leader...

[Andrew D]

The notion that "[e]very religious and moral leader in recorded history" has deemed male homosexual sex "something to be discouraged and condemned" is not supported by the facts.

With the notable exceptions of Islam and Judaism (the latter being a minor religion anyway -- there are more Sikhs* in the world than Jews, and there are more than 25 times as many Chinese Universists in the world than Jews**), it is generally the second-stringers, not the founders, of religions who busy themselves condemning male homosexual sex.

What did Jesus say about homosexual sex? Nothing.

What did the Buddha say about homosexual sex? Nothing:

Homosexuality is not explicitly mentioned in any of the Buddha's sayings recorded in the Pali Canon (Tripitaka) ....

Hinduism is difficult to assess, because it has "no 'founder', no single creed, no single universally accepted scripture, no single moral code or theological system, nor a single concept of god central to it." (John R. Hinnells, ed., A New Dictionary of Religions (rev. ed. 1995) at p. 211.) Still, "the famous Kama Sutra states that homosexual sex 'is to be engaged in and enjoyed for its own sake as one of the arts'" and that "in all things connected with love, everybody should act according to the custom of his country and his own inclination."

And then, of course, there are the ancient Greeks, whose thinking still forms the basis of Western philosophy. Plato (via a character) pithily observed:

Homosexuality is regarded as shameful by barbarians and by those who live under despotic governments just as philosophy is regarded as shameful by them, because it is apparently not in the interest of such rulers to have great ideas engendered in their subjects, or powerful friendships or passionate love-all of which homosexuality is particularly apt to produce.

Without the acerbity, Plutarch, some 500 years later and also via a character, wrote:

The noble lover of beauty engages in love wherever he sees excellence and splendid natural endowment without regard for any difference in physiological detail.

In short, this:

The consensus on this board (and on the political Left) seems to be: "Every religious and moral leader in recorded history was simply wrong on this point."

is simply counter-factual.

-------------------------

* Trivia tidbit: In Sikhism, celibacy is specifically prohibited.

** World Almanac and Book of Facts (2010) at p. 704 (Jews: 14,956,000; Sikhs: 22,927,500; Chinese Universists: 385,621,500).

[Andrew D]

Basically as religion has always used sexuality, and hate, to control people, and giving them gays as hate objects makes religious non thinkers feel good about themselves.

That's fanaticism, not religion.

That is a specious distinction. It is not simply some abstract, non-referential fanaticism. It is religious fanaticism.

Sure, one can distinguish the tenets of a particular religion from the beliefs of that religion's fanatic adherents. But to say that the fanaticism of that religion's fanatic adherents is not religious is to empty the fanaticism of its substantive content.

[thestoat]

What did Jesus say about homosexual sex? Nothing.

The old testament simply revels in it ... Actually, the old testament spouts loads of hate (and is considered by some to provide the foundations for the new testament) - though that is slightly off topic ...

[loCAtek]

Basically as religion has always used sexuality, and hate, to control people, and giving them gays as hate objects makes religious non thinkers feel good about themselves.

That's fanaticism, not religion.

That is a specious distinction. It is not simply some abstract, non-referential fanaticism. It is religious fanaticism.

[Granted]

Sure, one can distinguish the tenets of a particular religion from the beliefs of that religion's fanatic adherents. But to say that the fanaticism of that religion's fanatic adherents is not religious is to empty the fanaticism of its substantive content.

The point is: they(the fanatical) are not representative of the religious practice as a whole, that the point of the practice was not to lead to 'inferiority complex' pridefulness. That the religious practice was perverted if done so.

[dgs49]

As usual, the denizens of this Pit studiously ignore the elephant in the room.

The basically-defining sexual practice of male homosexuals ("...No son, those boys in the picture are NOT playing leap-frog...") is not only a biological absurdity and destructive of body parts that were decidedly NOT designed for this sort of invasive activity, but it is instinctively repulsive to at least 90% of the male population, regardless of culture or era. These facts precede any religious or cultural influence, and the near-universal condemnation of this activity by religious and cultural institutions merely reinforces the natural revulsion, which probably explains why the religious condemnation of this activity has been so persistent over a hundred generations.

And where - as in Arab cultures, some native American tribes, etc - it has been a regular activity, it is uniformly done in secret and denied in public. The few exceptions are noteworthy (e.g. ancient Greece) because they are so exceedingly rare in recorded history. (And make no mistake, the Gay (etc) community is scouring every historical document available to try to find favorable references to sodomy, to support their desire to be considered "normal").

It is an altogether separate question whether such practices are evil or those who regularly engage in them are evil, sinners, condemned to Hell, or what have you. We are all sinners. Some of us choose to redefine "sin" to permit those sins we favor, then claim to be virtuous. Nice work if you can get it.

But to claim that the only reason why such behavior is condemned is because religious fanatics want to spoil peoples' fun is, as I say, ignoring the elephant in the room.

[Big RR]

it is instinctively repulsive to at least 90% of the male population, regardless of culture or era

Instinctively repulsive? Then why would cultural and/or moral "authorities" comment on it all? I think the repulsion, if it exists, is the product of society--the same society that condemns oral sex among heterosexuals and masturbation.

[Andrew D]

The basically-defining sexual practice of male homosexuals ("...No son, those boys in the picture are NOT playing leap-frog...") ....

Well, anal intercourse is not the "basically-defining sexual practice of male homosexuals". Many gay men decline to participate in anal intercourse at all. (Hence, the common question "what do you like?") For many more gay men, anal intercourse, although part of their sexual repertoire, is a small part of what they do sexually. In simple terms, many gay men are strictly oral, and many more are mainly oral.

So if anal intercourse is "the elephant in the room" of popular opinion, that shows only that popular opinion is -- perish the thought! -- grossly ill-informed. Anal intercourse is not even the elephant in the "room" of male homosexual conduct. It is the elephant in the "room" of those who wish to make their own revulsions the standard by which others must live.

[Andrew D]

Notice the verbal sleight-of-hand:

[Anal intercourse between men] is instinctively repulsive to at least 90% of the male population, regardless of culture or era.

Because most men are heterosexual, they find the idea of their own participation in homosexual anal intercourse repulsive. But dgs49 wants to turn that into their finding the idea of other people's participation in homosexual anal intercourse repulsive.

It ain't so. I have no desire to participate in anal intercourse with a man (as penetrator or as penetrated). If I imagine myself doing so, I find the mental images revolting.

But it does not follow that I am disgusted by the idea that my gay neighbors engage in anal intercourse. (If they do; they are openly gay, but I have never inquired into the specifics of their sexual conduct, and they have never volunteered any details to me.) I have no desire to envision their doing so, but I am not at all revolted by the idea that they are doing so. It is none of my business, and I simply don't care.

The attempt to hyper-magnify one's specific revulsion at the idea of his own participation in anal intercourse into a general revulsion at the idea of others' participation in anal intercourse is, at the very least, a disingenuous mumpsimus. It is not argument; it is just sneakiness.

[tyro]

I have no desire to participate in anal intercourse with a man (as penetrator or as penetrated). If I imagine myself doing so, I find the mental images revolting.

Or in a way most of us could relate to, I don’t even want to imagine my parents having sex.


Of course they did, or I wouldn’t be here to cringe at the thought.


Clearly, I wouldn’t want to have denied them of that pleasure.

[Sue U]

Um, pardon me for pointing out the obvious, but it seems to me that there are plenty of men interested in teh buttsecks, and don't find it "repulsuive" at all when it involves a woman. It's simply the choice of partners that gets homophobes all worked up, not the act itself.

As for religious fanaticism, a "fanatic" is usefully defined as "anyone who believes more strongly than you do."

[Big RR]

Actually, I think a fanatic is someone who wants (or insists that you) believe as they do.

[rubato]

Make a list of the "virtually all" religions. Show where, in the dogma, homosexuality is condemned. Then go look at a map and see what portion is covered by the 'virtually all' religions for which you have proof that they condemn homosexual conduct.

I think you will need to account for all of these plus some others:

Shinto
Buddhist
Hindu
Zoroastrian

Islam
Christianity
Judaism (aren't these really 1 religion with three branches?)

Animism
Obeah
Aztec (I don't know what their religion was called, but ick! they tortured people! )
Mayan
Moche
Inca
Egyptian (various forms of worship)
Persian
Greek (panthiest)
Roman (panthiest)

"Every religious and moral leader in recorded history was simply wrong on this point."

I think you mean "the tiny narrow collection of religious leaders you are capable of recalling". Don't you?

yrs,
rubato

[oldr_n_wsr]

Actually, I think a fanatic is someone who wants (or insists that you) believe as they do.

And go to extremes to drive that point home.

[Gob]

The attempt to hyper-magnify one's specific revulsion at the idea of his own participation in anal intercourse into a general revulsion at the idea of others' participation in anal intercourse is, at the very least, a disingenuous mumpsimus. It is not argument; it is just sneakiness.

It's more than that, it's an artificial construct used by religion to generate fear, revulsion, and hate.

[loCAtek]

It's more than that, it's an artificial construct used by religion to generate fear, revulsion, and hate. create and exercise control

Fixed that for you.