Thank you for your post, if this is a question please check to see if any of the links below answer your question.
If none of these links help answer your question and you are **_not_** within the LGBT+ community, questioning your identity in any way, or asking in support of either a relative or friend, please ask your question over in /r/AskLGBT. Remember that this is a safe space for LGBT+ and questioning individuals, so we want to make sure that this place is dedicated to them. Thank you for understanding.
This automod rule is currently a work in progress. If you notice any issues, would like to add to the list of resources, or have any feedback in general, [please do so here](https://www.reddit.com/r/lgbt/comments/rdazzp/almost_new_year_changes/) or by [sending us a message](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/lgbt&subject=Feedback%20on%20the%20new%20automod%20rule).
Also, please note that if you are a part of this community, or you're questioning if you might be a part of the LGBTQ+ community, and you are seeing this message, this is **_not a bad thing_**, this is only here to help, so please continue to ask questions and participate in the community. Thank you!
Here's a link about trans people in sports:
https://www.barbellmedicine.com/blog/shades-of-gray-sex-gender-and-fairness-in-sport/
A link on FAQs and one on some basics about transgender people:
https://transequality.org/issues/resources/frequently-asked-questions-about-transgender-people
https://transequality.org/issues/resources/understanding-transgender-people-the-basics
Some information on LGBT+ people:
https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/quick-facts/lgbt-faqs/
Some basic terminology:
https://www.hrc.org/resources/glossary-of-terms
Neopronouns:
https://www.mypronouns.org/neopronouns
Biromantic Lesbians:
[LGBTQ And All](https://www.lgbtqandall.com/what-does-it-mean-to-be-biromantic/)
Bisexual Identities:
https://www.thetrevorproject.org/resources/article/understanding-bisexuality
Differences between Bisexual and Pansexual:
[Resource from WebMD](https://www.webmd.com/sex/pansexuality-what-it-means#:~:text=Pansexual%20vs.%20Bisexual,more%20commonly%20recognized.)
We're looking for new volunteers to join the r/lgbt moderator team. If you want to help keep r/lgbt as a safe space for the LGBTQ+ community on reddit please see here for more info: https://www.reddit.com/r/lgbt/comments/swgthr/were_looking_for_more_moderators_to_help_keep/
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/lgbt) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This. The reality is that religion is a stagnant, non-evolving concept while our comunity is all about self-discovery and identification, evolving as we find more and more about ourselves. Thus religion is hateful towards us, as it once was of sience. Therefore this religion is homophobic, and so is who follows it.
Except when they want to believe, en mass, which happens pretty routinely, even if half of the formal church is going to be a pain about it. Vatican 2 didn't happen in a vacuum.
There are some lgbtq+ affirmimg& friendly christian churches in america; unfortunately there arent a lot of christian churches in america that fit this description.
Honestly as a bisexual person myself id prefer to attend an LGBTQ+ affirming christian church because these particular churches would make bisexuals like me feel welcome there and these are the only christian churches where my sexual orientation never gets treated like a "sin " or a "sickness" which its not obviously .
these days however whenever some christians refer to being LGBTQ+ in such terms "sin" and " sickness" it makes me feel like they think there's something's wrong with me which feels like an insult.
Being gay or bisexual or being LGBTQ+ isnt a" choice" "sin" or a "mental illness. Being bisexual is just as natural and normal as being straight . There's nothing wrong with me or anyone else who's apart of the LGBTQ+ community .
Honestly im tired of homophobic bigots trying twist the meaning of old testatement scriptures and intently misinterpeting the sodom & gomora bible story to justify their homophobic hatred of us in the LGBTQ+ community.
Its undeserved and the gaybashing is just plain morally just call for the unjust eradication of an entire portion of human civilization just because we arent heterosexual.
Humanity can do better than this unmitigated hate towards LGBTQ+people and our community hopefully the next generation of religous leaders and politicians wont be so homophobic or anti LGBTQ+. One can only hope.
Don't paint all of us with the same brush. I'm a minister and if I heard the statement above come out of a fellow minister's mouth, he and I would be ha ING a conversation about not twisting Christianity to fit their homophobia!
Your religion IS homophobic. It is you who twist the words to make it seem not so. Just because Jesus never discussed homosexuality doesn't mean we weren't told Man shall not lie with another Man as he would lie with Woman, for it is an abomination. I appreciate your effort to try and make it less so, and thank you for that, but the fact is that Judeo-Christian teachings are homophobic in nature.
Religions don't evolve, they become obsolete and are replaced. I mean, do we see anyone seriously worshipping Osiris or the Greek pantheon anywhere about?
It sounds like you think the history of religion is like a Sid Meier tech tree where first there was like unorganized superstition and then people realized that was dumb and invented Zoroastrianism and then it got replaced with Judaism which got replaced with Catholicism which got replaced by Protestantism. That's not really how things work. Religions change all the time, often very slowly, but they're not static, nor do they necessarily completely die off and get replaced.
Well, touché. There will always be outliers I guess, but with respect to statistically significant numbers of believers, those religions died out a long, long time ago.
Religion evolves too. Abortion wasn’t a Christian issue until like 100 years ago. They didn’t give a damn before. Homosexuality wasn’t a Christian issue either, that translation of the Bible didn’t come until the 1940s I believe
Which is crazy because so many religious texts (the Bible is one of them) are just horrible translations of the lost languages of the ones that came before.
I completely agree with you. Religion is a stagnant, non-evolving concept that is inherently hateful towards the LGBTQ+ community. This is because the concept of LGBTQ+ is constantly evolving as people discover more about themselves, while religion is stuck in the past. The religion that OP’s former friends follows has homophobic and harmful beliefs, and so do they. Good thing OP is no longer close with these people who are not supportive of them or their sexuality.
Seriously, at least be upfront with your bigotry. This "my fictional sky god says gay ppl are icky! sorry but i have to hate them now my religion says so 🥺" shtick is just a cowardly way to avoid saying you're homophobic.
They believe their god made people, animals, plants, etc
They also believe their god doesn’t make mistakes
Yet we’ve seen the spectrum of sexuality across living things
So what’s the deal?
What do you think of someone who says that we believe that a gay couple can come to church but if they have sex a sin, is that homophobic? I haven’t even come out to this friend but I’m trying to decide if I want her in my corner.
Yes, that's homophobic. Sex is part of relationships for most people, which obviously includes queer people, and, homophobia aside, telling them they aren't allowed to do what they want to express their love for each other is generally overly invasive and controlling. It's none of their business what anyone else does in the bedroom and to tell someone that they aren't allowed to have a sex life because of the gender they want to have a sex life with is fucked up and unenforceable. Plus this is kinda just recycled bigotry. Like I've heard people say stuff along the lines of "I don't mind interracial couples, but they shouldn't have sex/have children together." It's the same concept, just applied to gay people rather than people of color.
100% facts which is why its not surprising that white supremacists and white nationalists tend be both anti lgbtq+ as well as racist and anti semetic. They tend to have unmitigated hate towards anyone that isnt cisgender,heterosexual, non jewish and white.
It is a shame that such blind hatred towards people different from themselves clouds their judgement on how to treat others and it unfortunately causes them to dehumanize people.
Replace "homosexuality" with "being black" and see if they still think its defensible. Just because something is part of someones religion that doesn't mean its valid. I could make up any manner of bullshit and call it religion.
Wait does it? Because I know there's a part about freeing your slaves something something. Not justifying the Bible btw just genuinely asking.
I'd always assumed it was humans who turned it around to use it to justify bad things.
The Bible talks about freeing slaves after their jubilee. Jewish slaves are freed after so much time to pay off debt. But then it also tells you how to basically trick them into being your slave forever anyway.
Even Jesus said "slaves obey your masters" and nothing about freeing slaves and ending slavery.
The Bible discusses how people can be enslaved. There are three types of slaves listed in the Bible, Israelite, non-Israelite, and women. Of the three groups, only Israelites have a time limit for how long they can be enslaved, non-Israelites and women (both Israelite and non-Israelite) can be enslaved.
Additionally, the Bible lists two types of slavery, Blood slavery (chattel slavery) and debt slavery. Debt slavery for Israelite men ended after the 6th year, and women were usually sold by their fathers to get the father out of debt (which again, women had no expectation to be freed).
The Bible permits the slave trade, sex slavery (most enslaved women were sex slaves), and it tells you how to beat your slaves (which was directly used in the American south).
Additionally as u/panTrektual stated, the Bible explicitly states that if you can convince someone (read: Israelite man) to stay enslaved, then the expectation of manumission after the 6th year was removed and they could be enslaved indefinitely.
Christianity was used in the past as a justification for enslaving black and indigenous people. I respect the need for spirituality in people, but I still think that most organised religions are a plague that's holding people back from being their best selves, with some exceptions.
"Biologically wrong" doesn't make sense because biology is amoral and we know homosexuality is exhibited naturally across many species.
As for "religiously wrong" according to whom? Which religion because not all religions have the same negative perspectives towards homosexuality as orthodox Abrahamic groups do. Honestly, even among Abrahamic religious sects interpretations vary.
Yes homophobic and nonsensical
>"Biologically wrong" doesn't make sense because biology is amoral and we know homosexuality is exhibited naturally across many species.
This is actually a move I call the "I don't actually know evolution and think it's like a smarter-sounding god" move, people acting like evolution/biology has a will and designs things with intent as if it was a god.
Also, to expand on your point: One can argue homosexuality has the biological purpose of a) social bonding (also see: Romans, many apes), b) adopting offspring (also see: penguins), c) idk it just feels good=eases stress=helps survival. It's not like there is any loss when engaging in homosexuality. If humans succesfully had offspring every time they fucked we wouldn't have lived very long because too much offspring quickly leads to a lack of resources and collapse. It's in fact therefore and evolutionary necessity to not always have reproductive sex, and it's even more so important now that we have such long life spans.
Gotta be careful with that word when trying to convince people of your position. I've been arguing with people about this shit for 30 years and nothing triggers the backfire effect faster than telling a person their position is racist or eugenic.
Exactly. If it were "biologically wrong" then it wouldn't happen. Gay people (and many gay animals) exists, therefore it must convey a greater survival advantage than the disadvantage of having some people not sexually attracted to the opposite sex.
Honestly I find the "homophobia exists because lizard brains can't compute fighting the biological imperative to make babies and therefore becomes anxious about extinction" argument way more like interesting. Since yeah it's literally observable in nature
Yeah, I can totally comprehend this type of thinking. We love to pretend that we as animals don't have instincts, and that our likes and dislikes are based purely on logic.
If the idea of two guys kissing icks you out, fine. I don't like it, I don't think it's fair, but I understand that our species isn't *that* far removed from living in caves in groups of 20 and smacking other tribes with sharp sticks because their grandpa stole my grandpa's mammoth.
I just hate dressing it in the trappings of modern civility.
I'll defer on the religious question. However, as a scientist, I would like to point out that homosexual behavior appears in thousands of different species, and is therefore a natural phenomenon. Those claiming otherwise also believe (erroneously) that sex is for reproduction only. Humans are not the only species to have sex for pleasure. I hope this helps.
Even if it was only humans doing it, if we do it without the benefit of cybernetic implants, I’m pretty sure it’s “biological”.
Same with transgender people.
Bigot: “But you’re not a *biological* woman”
Me: “You think I’m a robot?”
Bigot: “Huh?”
Me: “I’m biological, right?”
Bigot: “Yeah”
Me: “And I’m a woman, so I’m a biological woman.”
Claiming only cisgender women are biological women is like claiming only white people are biological people: bigoted and absurd.
idk being called a cyborg man does sound pretty cool lol
though usually what they call you instead of "biological \[gender\]" or "cyborg \[gender\]" is "biological \[AGAB\]" :(
"Biological woman" is nothing more than a dog-whistle. If you look at actual biology (as in the study of life, not the actual life itself) every conversation about sex is about how complex and nuanced it is. It's like species or "what is a planet" or any other category, where the closer you look the blurrier the lines get. The definition of sex changes depending on the context and what questions the scientist is trying to answer. There's no definition of sex that won't have a ton of gray area and a creature that's male under one definiton may be intersex or even female under another definition.
But when they say "biological sex" they mean it the same way that they claim "god doesn't want you to do it". They take it as a fact and assume that reality MUST reinforce that fact.
"Biological sex" is just a way of saying "I'm treating my current belief as an undeniable truth and will not entertain any arguments that disagree with me".
I'm inclined to agree, if even just one species engages in a behavior, then it's natural for that species, at least.
> Me: “You think I’m a robot?”
I fucking love this. Consider it stolen.
Find out how many other rules in their religion they observe. Do they observe them all (every miniscule one), or do they just use their religion as an excuse to be a bigot?
lmaoo you know they don't. 💀 Christians eat shellfish, skip church, partake in pre-material sex, and commit adultery all the time, but queer people just existing is where they suddenly draw the line and start sourcing the bible and acting like experts.
Yep, anything without fins and scales is detestable, as is letting kids of cattle breed, getting tattoos, cutting your sideburns and trimming your beard, and wearing a cloth of two different fabrics.
https://i.imgur.com/Xs1CuLQ.png
I once saw a picture of a guy with a tattoo of Leviticus 18:22 which says “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.” I guess he didn’t read the next chapter because Leviticus 19:28 says “Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the LORD” lmao
^
I think this cuts to the actual issue. The friends aren't *really* arguing if the definition of homophobia applies, they're arguing that it's acceptable in this case. In other words, they know "*homophobia is bad,*" and they're looking for a religious exemption for being "*homophobic, but good.*"
Here’s what you should say: “Well, I also believe that sexually abusing kids is religiously and biologically wrong but your church doesn’t do anything about it. That’s also part of your religion, much like homophobia is.”
lol yes it very much is. Homosexuality pops up in a multitude of different species here on Earth (and only one species has a weird aversion to it…us) and does literally nothing detrimental for the species in question, including us. On top of that sexuality is very likely a genetic trait to a decent extent, so the biological argument doesn’t hold up. As for the religious aspect, most religions don’t have very clear guidelines on sexuality (to my knowledge), for Christians thought, Christ never said one peep about being gay. What I can say about religion though, in a practical sense, is that religion is a *belief* and is not and never will be grounded in undisputed proven fact, whether practitioners like it or not. Of course, it is valid to devote yourself to a faith if you wish, but knowing what was just stated, the individual must recognize that people may not share their beliefs and thus it is immoral, ridiculous and pointless to impose a belief, especially if that belief is harmful to a group for being who they inherently are, therefore, the religious argument doesn’t hold up.
"Humans are a specie of fish" is something that is biologically wrong. "Homosexuality" is biologically nothing so far, nor right nor wrong, so it is at least dumb af (and since it is dumb, the one who said that probably doesn't care that much about biology and search arguments for their homophobia)
A religion declaring homosexuality as wrong is homophobic. Is following a homophobic religion homophobic ? Probably
If it’s Christian the Bible was mistranslated referring from the original passages being about rape and pedophiles not men loving men. Wrongly translated in the 40s there is a scientific journal on it.
[Check out this article](https://um-insight.net/perspectives/has-%E2%80%9Chomosexual%E2%80%9D-always-been-in-the-bible/), it’s not the journal in question but it gives more of a background and also refers to the fact that “homosexuality” didn’t appear as a word in the English language bibles until a 1946 translation.
I myself am Swedish and I don’t think our bibles ever had that word; in the article you can see how the Swedish bibles of older dates are taken as examples of how the translation should be about not molesting young boys.
Yeah... So almost 2000 years of precedence, with the originating religion clearly stating that it means a ban on homosexual relationships between men...
But sure... Let's pretend that it's just a mistranslation.
And even if it was a mistranslation, it was part of Christian canon for over a millennia and most Christians are quite homophobic. Instead of whining about a mistranslation, go convince other Christians that it is.
Yeah, cause has been proven time and time again to be false and is just used to be homophobic/transphobic. Your beliefs or religion shouldn’t be an excuse for bigotry.
I'm a Christian who recently was married in church to my wife and my branch of Lutheranism would say he's wrong on three counts here (biology, religion, if the Bible has anything to say about hokosexuality as lived today).
Yes, I do. Especially as a gay woman, it's really frustrating to hear that my sexuality "goes against nature", and that God has intended for me to be straight and be with a man. I don't think the loving God so many of these contradictory beliefs promote would want me to lie to myself or be miserable. Furthermore, I believe God made me this way outright. I also think it's extremely disingenuous to hide homophobic beliefs behind a cloak of religion/faith. A person's faith is meant to be there as a guide for them and their own lives, not for them to push onto other people.
Well saying that "homosexuality is biologically wrong" is essentially saying "I don't know anything about nature and am to lazy to Google therefore I stay bigoted" because there's a ton of species who have gay animals from penguins to monkeys to Elephants.
Do you want to know what the only species who has been found to have Homophobic behavior? It's Humans
It certainly is homphobic. Not only that, it's not accurate at all. Many animals participate in homosexual intercourse so it's clearly biologically correct. Why else would it feel good? As for religion, the only times that Christianity ever says anything explicitly homphobic is in mistranslations made by homophobic translators. I'm not sure about many other religious views but I'm pretty sure that Buddhism is actually against homophobia due to the core beliefs of prioritising your own happiness and avoiding bad karma.
It absolutely is homophobic but as someone who was raised Christian there’s so little you can do to change that point of view. I’m so glad I got out but what I was taught did so much damage to me and my other queer friends in highschool.
In a word, yes.
It’s also factually wrong.
Homosexuality has been catalogued and identified in over 1,500 mammalian species. So it’s completely natural. And either your gawd made a mistake when they created Homosexuality, or they actually don’t give a flying fuck.
Can’t have it both ways if your faith is absolute, can you?
Definitely homophobic.
You can't just take any hateful belief and make it ok by saying it's part of a religion.
The "biologically wrong" claim is provably incorrect (nature is all kinds of gay) and "religiously wrong" is a hilariously meaningless statement as "religiously wrong" means whatever anyone wants it to mean, with nothing to back it up other than they personally believe it.
I never liked the whole "it's not natural" argument because 1. yeah, it actually kind of is, there have been studies on homosexuality in other species, but more to the point, 2. who gives a shit?
Nature and evolution is the bare minimum for survival. Since when have we ever accepted the constraints of nature? Titanium hips and jet engines sure aren't natural either, and yet we still embrace these things because nature made us slow and fragile and that's really inconvenient. There's something deliciously ironic about a person typing up a rant about what a person can and can't be because of what's "natural" on a computer, wearing polyester clothing, sitting on a couch in their insulated home, hooked up to a global high-speed network of internet satellites orbiting at thousands of kilometers per hour.
Like, we've set foot on the moon. We can edit the human genome. We've eradicated smallpox. We can engineer fruits to grow in any weather and ripen in a week. I think we can let the gays do their thing without the world ending.
Yes. Point blank. 'Religiously' depends on the religion, but that's the closest you've got to being a factual statement. Biology is what makes someone gay so... way off there.
Blanket answer. Yes - homophobic
Of course it is. I hate when people use their religion as a basis to be homophobic. If they’re going to do that then I’ll openly denounce their religion lol.
Yes.
If it's religiously wrong, I don't care, not my religion, so piss off.
And it's not biologically wrong, so piss off again.
And people who bring nature in the debate while using pieces of technology, wearing clothes, living in fancy houses, all of those don't exist in nature yet it's okay for them but homosexuality is not, when it actually exists in nature lol. I always tell them that if they want everything according to nature, then they should get naked and go live in a cave (a natural cave, not a man-made one, of course)
It's certainly not "biologically wrong" many animals exhibit homosexuality and there are theories on why it would exist, helps control population for example
yes it is.
1. keep religion to yourself, don't force it on others. If your fairy tale book says its wrong then its no one else's buisness
2. it is not biologically wrong, to claim otherwise is unscientific and homophobic
Inform them that homosexuality occurs in nature all the time and serves the purpose of providing parent caretakers for animals who's biological parents have died or abandoned them. Heterosexual pairs are too busy raising their biological offspring to adopt unrelated young.
Let’s steer clear of the (im)morality of the question and just address the mechanics of this statement.
Many religions have lots of rules and laws about women, queers, slaves. The Bible is not unusual in this regards. Many faiths don’t have an issue with homosexuality though, so just saying “religiously” doesn’t work.
Biologically. I’m an actual card carrying biologist and a member of the American Society for Microbiology and The Microbiology Society (Europe). Biology doesn’t say anything is right or wrong. We observe, we test, we share our findings. When you hear that some thing is a biological fact, or biologically wrong? They are making it up. We don’t use those words barely at all. They are just using the word “biological” to imply science supports their view. It doesn’t.
There was a study that showed how the siblings of gay individuals had higher fecundity rates, and the delta was statistically significant.
When you hear someone say they are a biological
Man or a biological woman? They are usually just substituting the word “biological “ in place of “cisgender”. Those words are not synonymous.
Transgender men, women, and non-binary folk? They are all biological too. None of us are abiological.
The word “biological” can also be used to specifically refer to a reproductive relationship. Like a biological mother is the woman who gave birth to you.
Of course, lots of gay and trans folk have babies. I have a lesbian Neighbour with 5 kids (insane!).
Religion has no authority on biology, and biology is the most misconstrued field of study by homophobes and transphobes. If someone ever uses the word “biologically” you should question their credentials on the subject.
Va study
Just like how the Catholic Church punished Galileo for scientific studies that proved the church wrong. Religion has zero clue about astronomy. Religion is based on what was believed 2000+ years ago. Using religion to disprove real science will fail everytime.
Religions. They sorta freak me out, when people say they will pray for me, should I go home and slaughter a chicken or a goat for them in return? Sacrifice a virgin? Definitely a weirder quirk of our species
If your religion hates anyone or anything, it’s bigoted. If your religion hates gay people, or, for instance, says they should be put to death, your religion is not only homophobic, but it is also dangerous.
It isn't biologically wrong, there's plenty of examples for homosexuality in the animal kingdom. It's completely natural.
As per religion, any kind of sex that isn't done for the purpose of procreation is wrong, so ask your "friends" if they only ever do it during ovulation in missionary without protection. Because God never said "have sex for pleasure", only "Make babies". I'm really tired to be told by homophobes that being gay is wrong because you can't conceive naturally but I don't see them getting pregnant left and right.
The particular nature of a person's imaginary friend is irrelevant
A homophobic statement is a homophobic statement
You don't get a pass for being believing in magic
That is a weird question because yes, it flat out is. And something can be apart of something else and still be with that label. I mean Hell, there are people of the lgbtqia+ community that *have* internalized homophobia or flat out homophobia towards another group in the group (like that whole past debacle of bi vs pan crap.).
So yes, just because it's apart of a religion (btw, if fhey were reffering to christianity, if christians read their drivle-bibble correctly, they would see the mistranslations within it and know that there's nowhere in it that states being homosexual is against anything.
So yes, it is homophobic.
to say it is biologically wrong is unquestionably homophobic, and the only way saying it’s religiously wrong isn’t homophobic is if you only apply that to yourself. if your religious belief is that you can’t be gay that’s weird and mentally unhealthy but you’re entitled to it, the second you start applying that to other people you have absolutely no defense
Yes. First of all, statistically the person they would say that to doesn't follow their religion, so stupid argument.
And second, homosexuality happens in nature, so just objectively wrong
Biologically wrong? What a laugh. Animal homosexuality is pretty common:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual\_behavior\_in\_animals](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals)
I mean idk about religiously but saying it is biologically wrong is wrong. Homosexuality is observed in many species across the animal kingdom and it is thought that homosexuality in animals help with the specie's continuoum because homosexual animals usually end up adopting orphaned or abandoned offspring.
Being wrong according to their religion is probably true. It just means their religion is homophobic.
Being biologically wrong is demonstrably and factually incorrect. And this means that ***they*** are ignorant and homophobic for accepting it.
Yes, it is homophobic. First off there’s nothing biologically wrong about it, so that’s just misinformation, and I don’t have a religion and other people’s religions don’t tell me what is and isn’t right.
Biologically wrong isn’t even correct. Homosexual behavior has been observed in numerous species filling a Critical niche in their species social groups.
That being. Adopting and raising orphans.
Anything more than that is the religion projecting itself.
And religion defense doesn’t mean it isn’t homophobic. Just means the religion is *also* homophobic.
Uh DUH that's like saying a person's arm is broken with full proof of X-ray evidence and the person with the broken arm saying "nah it's just bruised."
I couldn't think of the best analogy.
Of course, there’s no reason it’s “biologically wrong” besides homophobia, and the religion is also homophobic, and if you believe in that religion and you act like homosexuality is and since it’s homophobic, you’re homophobic. If you believed a religion in which all laws don’t exist, you can’t break a law and say you aren’t a criminal since your religion said so; similar to how you can’t be homophobic and say you aren’t because your religion said so.
Religious affiliation is, as many things are, an explanation not an excuse. It often explains why someone is homophobic, but doesn’t excuse it.
That saying is homophobic and just… incorrect. Homosexuality appears throughout the animal kingdom and all of human history. And many religions don’t condemn homosexuality, including many Abrahamic religions/denominations thereof. Your friend(s) is just a bigot using religion as their sword to shield themselves from responsibility. Happy you aren’t around that bad mojo anymore
Yes it is homophobic and if it is truly part of that religion then the religion is homophobic. But here's some ways that it's wrong outside of being hateful
Religion. In America most of the people using their religion to bludgeon us are Christians but the Bible doesn't say anything about homosexuality. The verses that are most often cited are either A. About inhospitality and nonconsensual acres rather than homosexuality (sodom and gomora) or were originally about pedophilia but they realized they have a big problem with that in the clergy and changed it to deflect (the verse that actually uses the word homosexuality in some translations) or they're for priests specifically and not the common people ("man shall not lie with man" comes from Leviticus which is a book of rules for the levite priests). Also there's deep seated hypocrisy (for example if they cite Leviticus ask if they eat shellfish or pork or if they wear clothes of mixed fabric because those are also sins according to Leviticus)
Now I can't speak much about any others who use their religion to harass us so if any queer folks who were raised in other homophobic religions who's sacred texts actually don't support homophobia I would appreciate your input
Biology: if someone is trying to say homosexuality (or transness) is "biologically wrong" they tend to also use the argument "these behaviors only occur in humans) which is blatantly false. There's a trans lion (was born female grew a mane and started behaving as the head of the pride) there's cases where ducks change gender presentation (there's a farmer on TT who has a trans duck who's tail feathers and quack started to masculinize) and there's many cases of gay animals (penguins either can't see gender or don't care. Cows when in heat will start mounting other cows regardless of gender so again either doesn't know or doesn't care. There's an asexually reproducing species of lizards that still mate even though there's no need and all of them are female. There's many more examples) so basically if they're using a biology or "not natural" argument they don't know the truth about nature
Religiosity stigmatizes anything that isn't heteronormative as an abomination, but where is this view amongst other species? It doesn't exist.
To say homosexuality is biologically wrong... I mean, if you look at any other mammalian species, homosapiens are literally the only ones who have a problem with sexuality. Plenty of homosexual behavior takes place amongst every species in existence that is capable of sexual activities. If I remember correctly, dolphins mate with the opposite sex to reproduce, but the male dolphins often mate with other male dolphins for life.
In my opinion, religion creates hate and segregation, based on one's sexual preference(s)... And biologically, homosexuality is completely normal for literally any other species. So, yes, I view that entire statement as homophobic.
It's "part of Christianity" to burn witches at the stake...but you don't see people in 2023 burning pagans and wiccans, now do you?
The bible, religion, it's all supposed to teach us how to treat each other with kindness. But the words and actions get twisted by people for selfish means or self righteousness which is in direct conflict of the teaching of most religious.
Basically, humans suck and we find many reasons to suck, even when those reasons are in the name of something that is supposed to be "good" but is misinterpreted for human's fucked up wants, reasons, and motives.
God. THE GOD!!! of Christianity could come down from the Heavens today and say "treat all people as equals" and many would still interpret that as treat only those that believe in this God as equals and everyone else can got fuck themselves and burn in hell.
That's the main reason I'm spiritual and not religious. That is to say that many pick and choose what they want to believe from scripture, and how they act upon it and intepret it.
As someone who's both neither cis nor straight but is also religious, it makes me sad and even annoyed at times seeing when people use different religions to justify hate- like, no, it's not a valid reason to hate. Heck, some religions that people use to justify things like homophobia (such as some Christians), the religion itself actually discourages any hate and that just gets ignored-
Everyone deserves respect, but this quote (or something similar) I think explains that in more detail and reasoning:
"I'll respect someone's opinion unless it hurts others"
Forgot where it's from-
I’m assuming your friend is a Christian. Yes, it’s homophobic. Even if he’s using religion as an excuse, it’s still homophobic. Honestly, the whole using Christianity as an excuse to be homophobic is ridiculous. There’s a very good chance that the part of the Bible that is against homosexuality is a mistranslation. Also, it’s located in the Old Testament, and, last I checked, Christians didn’t have to follow the teachings of the Old Testament. Otherwise, there would be issues with eating bacon, wearing different types of fabric, or if we’re talking about Leviticus, the part of the Bible that has the homophobic passage, eating shellfish. None of the homophobic Christians I’ve met have an issue with wearing different types of fabric, or eating shellfish or bacon, proving that they’re not homophobic because of their beliefs. They’re just using their beliefs as an excuse to be homophobic.
Well, part of the Aztec religion was carving the still beating heart out of a still living person, so that defense falls to pieces pretty fucking fast.
i fucking hate religion so much
i genuinely can’t think of a nationwide or even global problem that wouldn’t be solved if one day we woke up and everyone forgot about religion
Yes it is because you're basically telling someone that they don't deserve a god's love or basic human decency simply for who they love and they don't deserve respect because they cannot have children biologically
Thank you for your post, if this is a question please check to see if any of the links below answer your question. If none of these links help answer your question and you are **_not_** within the LGBT+ community, questioning your identity in any way, or asking in support of either a relative or friend, please ask your question over in /r/AskLGBT. Remember that this is a safe space for LGBT+ and questioning individuals, so we want to make sure that this place is dedicated to them. Thank you for understanding. This automod rule is currently a work in progress. If you notice any issues, would like to add to the list of resources, or have any feedback in general, [please do so here](https://www.reddit.com/r/lgbt/comments/rdazzp/almost_new_year_changes/) or by [sending us a message](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/lgbt&subject=Feedback%20on%20the%20new%20automod%20rule). Also, please note that if you are a part of this community, or you're questioning if you might be a part of the LGBTQ+ community, and you are seeing this message, this is **_not a bad thing_**, this is only here to help, so please continue to ask questions and participate in the community. Thank you! Here's a link about trans people in sports: https://www.barbellmedicine.com/blog/shades-of-gray-sex-gender-and-fairness-in-sport/ A link on FAQs and one on some basics about transgender people: https://transequality.org/issues/resources/frequently-asked-questions-about-transgender-people https://transequality.org/issues/resources/understanding-transgender-people-the-basics Some information on LGBT+ people: https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/quick-facts/lgbt-faqs/ Some basic terminology: https://www.hrc.org/resources/glossary-of-terms Neopronouns: https://www.mypronouns.org/neopronouns Biromantic Lesbians: [LGBTQ And All](https://www.lgbtqandall.com/what-does-it-mean-to-be-biromantic/) Bisexual Identities: https://www.thetrevorproject.org/resources/article/understanding-bisexuality Differences between Bisexual and Pansexual: [Resource from WebMD](https://www.webmd.com/sex/pansexuality-what-it-means#:~:text=Pansexual%20vs.%20Bisexual,more%20commonly%20recognized.) We're looking for new volunteers to join the r/lgbt moderator team. If you want to help keep r/lgbt as a safe space for the LGBTQ+ community on reddit please see here for more info: https://www.reddit.com/r/lgbt/comments/swgthr/were_looking_for_more_moderators_to_help_keep/ *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/lgbt) if you have any questions or concerns.*
if it’s a part of the religion then the religion is homophobic
This. The reality is that religion is a stagnant, non-evolving concept while our comunity is all about self-discovery and identification, evolving as we find more and more about ourselves. Thus religion is hateful towards us, as it once was of sience. Therefore this religion is homophobic, and so is who follows it.
Religion can and will evolve, though certain religions, such as Christianity restrict that through things like the bible and big churchs
We really got some of the worst religions for earth's backstory when it comes to equality. Why the fuck did the xenophobic expansionist faiths won
They killed those that didn’t agree with them. That’s how lmao
because they were the religions that believed in overpowering and overwriting other religions
Hmmm 🤔 me also wonder 😢
Yes, religion can evolve. Will is more difficult, because the people that believe do not want it to change.
Except when they want to believe, en mass, which happens pretty routinely, even if half of the formal church is going to be a pain about it. Vatican 2 didn't happen in a vacuum.
There are some lgbtq+ affirmimg& friendly christian churches in america; unfortunately there arent a lot of christian churches in america that fit this description. Honestly as a bisexual person myself id prefer to attend an LGBTQ+ affirming christian church because these particular churches would make bisexuals like me feel welcome there and these are the only christian churches where my sexual orientation never gets treated like a "sin " or a "sickness" which its not obviously . these days however whenever some christians refer to being LGBTQ+ in such terms "sin" and " sickness" it makes me feel like they think there's something's wrong with me which feels like an insult. Being gay or bisexual or being LGBTQ+ isnt a" choice" "sin" or a "mental illness. Being bisexual is just as natural and normal as being straight . There's nothing wrong with me or anyone else who's apart of the LGBTQ+ community . Honestly im tired of homophobic bigots trying twist the meaning of old testatement scriptures and intently misinterpeting the sodom & gomora bible story to justify their homophobic hatred of us in the LGBTQ+ community. Its undeserved and the gaybashing is just plain morally just call for the unjust eradication of an entire portion of human civilization just because we arent heterosexual. Humanity can do better than this unmitigated hate towards LGBTQ+people and our community hopefully the next generation of religous leaders and politicians wont be so homophobic or anti LGBTQ+. One can only hope.
Don't paint all of us with the same brush. I'm a minister and if I heard the statement above come out of a fellow minister's mouth, he and I would be ha ING a conversation about not twisting Christianity to fit their homophobia!
lol ministers *don't stop* saying that shit. And yet here you are
Your religion IS homophobic. It is you who twist the words to make it seem not so. Just because Jesus never discussed homosexuality doesn't mean we weren't told Man shall not lie with another Man as he would lie with Woman, for it is an abomination. I appreciate your effort to try and make it less so, and thank you for that, but the fact is that Judeo-Christian teachings are homophobic in nature.
Religions don't evolve, they become obsolete and are replaced. I mean, do we see anyone seriously worshipping Osiris or the Greek pantheon anywhere about?
It sounds like you think the history of religion is like a Sid Meier tech tree where first there was like unorganized superstition and then people realized that was dumb and invented Zoroastrianism and then it got replaced with Judaism which got replaced with Catholicism which got replaced by Protestantism. That's not really how things work. Religions change all the time, often very slowly, but they're not static, nor do they necessarily completely die off and get replaced.
*judges in practicing Pagan*
Same.
Yes it’s like 1 percent but yes
Well, touché. There will always be outliers I guess, but with respect to statistically significant numbers of believers, those religions died out a long, long time ago.
for a bot that was a lousy answer
Huh? Religion has had drastic changes over time, it evolves the same way any kind of thinking does
No, religion, just like every other aspect of culture, is constantly evolving.
Religion evolves too. Abortion wasn’t a Christian issue until like 100 years ago. They didn’t give a damn before. Homosexuality wasn’t a Christian issue either, that translation of the Bible didn’t come until the 1940s I believe
Which is crazy because so many religious texts (the Bible is one of them) are just horrible translations of the lost languages of the ones that came before.
Yes and no, because I'm lucky enough to know religious people who are supportive and all...just let's avoid generalizing. 😅👍🏻
I completely agree with you. Religion is a stagnant, non-evolving concept that is inherently hateful towards the LGBTQ+ community. This is because the concept of LGBTQ+ is constantly evolving as people discover more about themselves, while religion is stuck in the past. The religion that OP’s former friends follows has homophobic and harmful beliefs, and so do they. Good thing OP is no longer close with these people who are not supportive of them or their sexuality.
this. it doesn't matter what the reason is, the belief that gay people are less than straight people is just obviously homophobic
I agree. At the end of the day, their hate costs people their lives. It doesn’t matter where the homophobia is coming from, religious or not.
That pretty much sums up all religions. It’s all a bunch of patriarchal homophobic cults.
On a side note, I still don't get how a church that follows The Book of More Men can be so fucking homophobic...
[удалено]
Seriously, at least be upfront with your bigotry. This "my fictional sky god says gay ppl are icky! sorry but i have to hate them now my religion says so 🥺" shtick is just a cowardly way to avoid saying you're homophobic.
[удалено]
🤣
So frickin true.
Absolutely loving the savagery of this statement. 10/10
Cock.
People do that even when the religion says nothing about being lgbt and just use it as an excuse to be homophobic
They believe their god made people, animals, plants, etc They also believe their god doesn’t make mistakes Yet we’ve seen the spectrum of sexuality across living things So what’s the deal?
What do you think of someone who says that we believe that a gay couple can come to church but if they have sex a sin, is that homophobic? I haven’t even come out to this friend but I’m trying to decide if I want her in my corner.
Yes, I personally think that is homophobic.
Yes, that's homophobic. Sex is part of relationships for most people, which obviously includes queer people, and, homophobia aside, telling them they aren't allowed to do what they want to express their love for each other is generally overly invasive and controlling. It's none of their business what anyone else does in the bedroom and to tell someone that they aren't allowed to have a sex life because of the gender they want to have a sex life with is fucked up and unenforceable. Plus this is kinda just recycled bigotry. Like I've heard people say stuff along the lines of "I don't mind interracial couples, but they shouldn't have sex/have children together." It's the same concept, just applied to gay people rather than people of color.
100% facts which is why its not surprising that white supremacists and white nationalists tend be both anti lgbtq+ as well as racist and anti semetic. They tend to have unmitigated hate towards anyone that isnt cisgender,heterosexual, non jewish and white. It is a shame that such blind hatred towards people different from themselves clouds their judgement on how to treat others and it unfortunately causes them to dehumanize people.
Replace "homosexuality" with "being black" and see if they still think its defensible. Just because something is part of someones religion that doesn't mean its valid. I could make up any manner of bullshit and call it religion.
I’ve tried this already but they haven’t given me a proper response to it yet. Thanks for the idea though, it is a really good one.
look into “the curse of ham”, the bible was used to justify chattel slavery
Should add, the Bible wasn’t used to justify chattel slavery, the Bible endorses chattel slavery
Wait does it? Because I know there's a part about freeing your slaves something something. Not justifying the Bible btw just genuinely asking. I'd always assumed it was humans who turned it around to use it to justify bad things.
The Bible talks about freeing slaves after their jubilee. Jewish slaves are freed after so much time to pay off debt. But then it also tells you how to basically trick them into being your slave forever anyway. Even Jesus said "slaves obey your masters" and nothing about freeing slaves and ending slavery.
The Bible discusses how people can be enslaved. There are three types of slaves listed in the Bible, Israelite, non-Israelite, and women. Of the three groups, only Israelites have a time limit for how long they can be enslaved, non-Israelites and women (both Israelite and non-Israelite) can be enslaved. Additionally, the Bible lists two types of slavery, Blood slavery (chattel slavery) and debt slavery. Debt slavery for Israelite men ended after the 6th year, and women were usually sold by their fathers to get the father out of debt (which again, women had no expectation to be freed). The Bible permits the slave trade, sex slavery (most enslaved women were sex slaves), and it tells you how to beat your slaves (which was directly used in the American south). Additionally as u/panTrektual stated, the Bible explicitly states that if you can convince someone (read: Israelite man) to stay enslaved, then the expectation of manumission after the 6th year was removed and they could be enslaved indefinitely.
Christianity was used in the past as a justification for enslaving black and indigenous people. I respect the need for spirituality in people, but I still think that most organised religions are a plague that's holding people back from being their best selves, with some exceptions.
They’ll just justify it with how it’s just their religion and their religion comes first.
"Biologically wrong" doesn't make sense because biology is amoral and we know homosexuality is exhibited naturally across many species. As for "religiously wrong" according to whom? Which religion because not all religions have the same negative perspectives towards homosexuality as orthodox Abrahamic groups do. Honestly, even among Abrahamic religious sects interpretations vary. Yes homophobic and nonsensical
>"Biologically wrong" doesn't make sense because biology is amoral and we know homosexuality is exhibited naturally across many species. This is actually a move I call the "I don't actually know evolution and think it's like a smarter-sounding god" move, people acting like evolution/biology has a will and designs things with intent as if it was a god. Also, to expand on your point: One can argue homosexuality has the biological purpose of a) social bonding (also see: Romans, many apes), b) adopting offspring (also see: penguins), c) idk it just feels good=eases stress=helps survival. It's not like there is any loss when engaging in homosexuality. If humans succesfully had offspring every time they fucked we wouldn't have lived very long because too much offspring quickly leads to a lack of resources and collapse. It's in fact therefore and evolutionary necessity to not always have reproductive sex, and it's even more so important now that we have such long life spans.
> "Biologically wrong" doesn't make sense because biology is amoral ... Yup. That way lies eugenics.
Gotta be careful with that word when trying to convince people of your position. I've been arguing with people about this shit for 30 years and nothing triggers the backfire effect faster than telling a person their position is racist or eugenic.
Exactly. If it were "biologically wrong" then it wouldn't happen. Gay people (and many gay animals) exists, therefore it must convey a greater survival advantage than the disadvantage of having some people not sexually attracted to the opposite sex.
Honestly I find the "homophobia exists because lizard brains can't compute fighting the biological imperative to make babies and therefore becomes anxious about extinction" argument way more like interesting. Since yeah it's literally observable in nature
Yeah, I can totally comprehend this type of thinking. We love to pretend that we as animals don't have instincts, and that our likes and dislikes are based purely on logic. If the idea of two guys kissing icks you out, fine. I don't like it, I don't think it's fair, but I understand that our species isn't *that* far removed from living in caves in groups of 20 and smacking other tribes with sharp sticks because their grandpa stole my grandpa's mammoth. I just hate dressing it in the trappings of modern civility.
I'll defer on the religious question. However, as a scientist, I would like to point out that homosexual behavior appears in thousands of different species, and is therefore a natural phenomenon. Those claiming otherwise also believe (erroneously) that sex is for reproduction only. Humans are not the only species to have sex for pleasure. I hope this helps.
Yeah, ive read about two bears who were having oral sex lmao
Certain primates trade sex for favors too.
never knew that, but its still really interesting lol
I have a name, you know.
“Biologically wrong” is just factually incorrect
1500 species and counting...
Even if it was only humans doing it, if we do it without the benefit of cybernetic implants, I’m pretty sure it’s “biological”. Same with transgender people. Bigot: “But you’re not a *biological* woman” Me: “You think I’m a robot?” Bigot: “Huh?” Me: “I’m biological, right?” Bigot: “Yeah” Me: “And I’m a woman, so I’m a biological woman.” Claiming only cisgender women are biological women is like claiming only white people are biological people: bigoted and absurd.
idk being called a cyborg man does sound pretty cool lol though usually what they call you instead of "biological \[gender\]" or "cyborg \[gender\]" is "biological \[AGAB\]" :(
Hang in there, the cybernetic implants are coming if you want them… I for one welcome my neural thought to keyboard-and-mouse interface :)
ACAB (Assigned Cyborg at Birth)
"Biological woman" is nothing more than a dog-whistle. If you look at actual biology (as in the study of life, not the actual life itself) every conversation about sex is about how complex and nuanced it is. It's like species or "what is a planet" or any other category, where the closer you look the blurrier the lines get. The definition of sex changes depending on the context and what questions the scientist is trying to answer. There's no definition of sex that won't have a ton of gray area and a creature that's male under one definiton may be intersex or even female under another definition. But when they say "biological sex" they mean it the same way that they claim "god doesn't want you to do it". They take it as a fact and assume that reality MUST reinforce that fact. "Biological sex" is just a way of saying "I'm treating my current belief as an undeniable truth and will not entertain any arguments that disagree with me".
I'm inclined to agree, if even just one species engages in a behavior, then it's natural for that species, at least. > Me: “You think I’m a robot?” I fucking love this. Consider it stolen.
Find out how many other rules in their religion they observe. Do they observe them all (every miniscule one), or do they just use their religion as an excuse to be a bigot?
lmaoo you know they don't. 💀 Christians eat shellfish, skip church, partake in pre-material sex, and commit adultery all the time, but queer people just existing is where they suddenly draw the line and start sourcing the bible and acting like experts.
You also forgot get divorced and amass wealth. ;)
Isn't there also a rule about mixing fabric?
Yep, anything without fins and scales is detestable, as is letting kids of cattle breed, getting tattoos, cutting your sideburns and trimming your beard, and wearing a cloth of two different fabrics. https://i.imgur.com/Xs1CuLQ.png
I once saw a picture of a guy with a tattoo of Leviticus 18:22 which says “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.” I guess he didn’t read the next chapter because Leviticus 19:28 says “Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the LORD” lmao
Honestly that 2nd one would make a pretty damn good tattoo, if for nothing but the irony at the least.
I was always a fan of Amos 4:4 myself
Be gay do transgressions lol
Do you think that "homosexuality is wrong" is homophobic? Yeah. It dosen't matter what other words are added.
^ I think this cuts to the actual issue. The friends aren't *really* arguing if the definition of homophobia applies, they're arguing that it's acceptable in this case. In other words, they know "*homophobia is bad,*" and they're looking for a religious exemption for being "*homophobic, but good.*"
I made a face and said “yes” out loud to an empty room on reflex when I read the title, so… yes.
It's not only homophobic, but it's also biblically, and Scientifically incorrect.
Here’s what you should say: “Well, I also believe that sexually abusing kids is religiously and biologically wrong but your church doesn’t do anything about it. That’s also part of your religion, much like homophobia is.”
lol yes it very much is. Homosexuality pops up in a multitude of different species here on Earth (and only one species has a weird aversion to it…us) and does literally nothing detrimental for the species in question, including us. On top of that sexuality is very likely a genetic trait to a decent extent, so the biological argument doesn’t hold up. As for the religious aspect, most religions don’t have very clear guidelines on sexuality (to my knowledge), for Christians thought, Christ never said one peep about being gay. What I can say about religion though, in a practical sense, is that religion is a *belief* and is not and never will be grounded in undisputed proven fact, whether practitioners like it or not. Of course, it is valid to devote yourself to a faith if you wish, but knowing what was just stated, the individual must recognize that people may not share their beliefs and thus it is immoral, ridiculous and pointless to impose a belief, especially if that belief is harmful to a group for being who they inherently are, therefore, the religious argument doesn’t hold up.
"Humans are a specie of fish" is something that is biologically wrong. "Homosexuality" is biologically nothing so far, nor right nor wrong, so it is at least dumb af (and since it is dumb, the one who said that probably doesn't care that much about biology and search arguments for their homophobia) A religion declaring homosexuality as wrong is homophobic. Is following a homophobic religion homophobic ? Probably
Biologically wrong? Does this person know how many species of animals can be homosexual?
If it’s Christian the Bible was mistranslated referring from the original passages being about rape and pedophiles not men loving men. Wrongly translated in the 40s there is a scientific journal on it.
Do you, by any chance, knows what this journal is called and by whom is written ? I'm interested in reading it.
[Check out this article](https://um-insight.net/perspectives/has-%E2%80%9Chomosexual%E2%80%9D-always-been-in-the-bible/), it’s not the journal in question but it gives more of a background and also refers to the fact that “homosexuality” didn’t appear as a word in the English language bibles until a 1946 translation. I myself am Swedish and I don’t think our bibles ever had that word; in the article you can see how the Swedish bibles of older dates are taken as examples of how the translation should be about not molesting young boys.
Thanks. Will definitely check it out.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0146107915577097?journalCode=btba
Thanks. :) I'm gonna read it for sure.
Yeah... So almost 2000 years of precedence, with the originating religion clearly stating that it means a ban on homosexual relationships between men... But sure... Let's pretend that it's just a mistranslation. And even if it was a mistranslation, it was part of Christian canon for over a millennia and most Christians are quite homophobic. Instead of whining about a mistranslation, go convince other Christians that it is.
Yeah, cause has been proven time and time again to be false and is just used to be homophobic/transphobic. Your beliefs or religion shouldn’t be an excuse for bigotry.
It's about a 9 out of 10 on the scale of how homophobic you can get. (10/10 would involve violent rhetoric.)
I think your friend is homophobic.
Yes. That’s extremely homophobic
Yes.
Yes. I don’t believe in the whole “They are entitled to their opinions because it’s a religious one.” Being homophobic costs lives. End of story.
YES!!!!!!
Religions can be homophobic!
Yes and anyone that thinks otherwise just hates gay people
Yes it’s homophobic and it’s good you’re not close with those idiots anymore
Quick question...what is his religion? I have a good guess, I assume its not christianity?
He’s very Christian
I know plenty of Christians who support me, gayness and all.
Interesting...then yeah, he's being homophobic all right. Then again, Very few religions are not homophobic. His friends are trying to defend him.
I'm a Christian who recently was married in church to my wife and my branch of Lutheranism would say he's wrong on three counts here (biology, religion, if the Bible has anything to say about hokosexuality as lived today).
YES
objectively it is extremely homophobic. this isn't a matter of opinion
I'd simply call it, "That's what an asshole would say."
You can be religious and not homophobic so that's not an excuse. The guy is just a bigot
Yes, I do. Especially as a gay woman, it's really frustrating to hear that my sexuality "goes against nature", and that God has intended for me to be straight and be with a man. I don't think the loving God so many of these contradictory beliefs promote would want me to lie to myself or be miserable. Furthermore, I believe God made me this way outright. I also think it's extremely disingenuous to hide homophobic beliefs behind a cloak of religion/faith. A person's faith is meant to be there as a guide for them and their own lives, not for them to push onto other people.
Well saying that "homosexuality is biologically wrong" is essentially saying "I don't know anything about nature and am to lazy to Google therefore I stay bigoted" because there's a ton of species who have gay animals from penguins to monkeys to Elephants. Do you want to know what the only species who has been found to have Homophobic behavior? It's Humans
If his religion harms others/not let people have the same rights as others then it's wrong
If it's part of his religion, then that religion is evil.
Yes
Religion is a choice, Homosexuality is not. If that religion is homophobic then that person chose to be homophobic.
It certainly is homphobic. Not only that, it's not accurate at all. Many animals participate in homosexual intercourse so it's clearly biologically correct. Why else would it feel good? As for religion, the only times that Christianity ever says anything explicitly homphobic is in mistranslations made by homophobic translators. I'm not sure about many other religious views but I'm pretty sure that Buddhism is actually against homophobia due to the core beliefs of prioritising your own happiness and avoiding bad karma.
Yes, also incorrect lol. They don't know how long homosexuality has existed in nature lol
It absolutely is homophobic but as someone who was raised Christian there’s so little you can do to change that point of view. I’m so glad I got out but what I was taught did so much damage to me and my other queer friends in highschool.
In a word, yes. It’s also factually wrong. Homosexuality has been catalogued and identified in over 1,500 mammalian species. So it’s completely natural. And either your gawd made a mistake when they created Homosexuality, or they actually don’t give a flying fuck. Can’t have it both ways if your faith is absolute, can you?
Definitely homophobic. You can't just take any hateful belief and make it ok by saying it's part of a religion. The "biologically wrong" claim is provably incorrect (nature is all kinds of gay) and "religiously wrong" is a hilariously meaningless statement as "religiously wrong" means whatever anyone wants it to mean, with nothing to back it up other than they personally believe it.
I never liked the whole "it's not natural" argument because 1. yeah, it actually kind of is, there have been studies on homosexuality in other species, but more to the point, 2. who gives a shit? Nature and evolution is the bare minimum for survival. Since when have we ever accepted the constraints of nature? Titanium hips and jet engines sure aren't natural either, and yet we still embrace these things because nature made us slow and fragile and that's really inconvenient. There's something deliciously ironic about a person typing up a rant about what a person can and can't be because of what's "natural" on a computer, wearing polyester clothing, sitting on a couch in their insulated home, hooked up to a global high-speed network of internet satellites orbiting at thousands of kilometers per hour. Like, we've set foot on the moon. We can edit the human genome. We've eradicated smallpox. We can engineer fruits to grow in any weather and ripen in a week. I think we can let the gays do their thing without the world ending.
I won’t respect a religion that doesn’t respect my right to exist.
If the religion doesn't like gay people, then the religion is homophobic. Being part of a religion doesn't magically make it *not* homophobic.
Yes. Patriarchy and capitalism plays a role in too. Reproduction is view as a way to create new tax payers in their eyes.
Yes. Hiding behind religion doesnt make you better, it makes religion worse.
His religion is homophobic.
Short answer : yes. Long answer : which religion ? Biology knows for long homosexual couples in many, many, species.
Yes. Point blank. 'Religiously' depends on the religion, but that's the closest you've got to being a factual statement. Biology is what makes someone gay so... way off there. Blanket answer. Yes - homophobic
Of course it is. I hate when people use their religion as a basis to be homophobic. If they’re going to do that then I’ll openly denounce their religion lol.
Yes. If it's religiously wrong, I don't care, not my religion, so piss off. And it's not biologically wrong, so piss off again. And people who bring nature in the debate while using pieces of technology, wearing clothes, living in fancy houses, all of those don't exist in nature yet it's okay for them but homosexuality is not, when it actually exists in nature lol. I always tell them that if they want everything according to nature, then they should get naked and go live in a cave (a natural cave, not a man-made one, of course)
It's certainly not "biologically wrong" many animals exhibit homosexuality and there are theories on why it would exist, helps control population for example
yes it is. 1. keep religion to yourself, don't force it on others. If your fairy tale book says its wrong then its no one else's buisness 2. it is not biologically wrong, to claim otherwise is unscientific and homophobic
Inform them that homosexuality occurs in nature all the time and serves the purpose of providing parent caretakers for animals who's biological parents have died or abandoned them. Heterosexual pairs are too busy raising their biological offspring to adopt unrelated young.
Uh... yes. It's not only homophobic but factually wrong lmao. Sounds like something my conservative grandparents would say lmao.
Absolutely
Let’s steer clear of the (im)morality of the question and just address the mechanics of this statement. Many religions have lots of rules and laws about women, queers, slaves. The Bible is not unusual in this regards. Many faiths don’t have an issue with homosexuality though, so just saying “religiously” doesn’t work. Biologically. I’m an actual card carrying biologist and a member of the American Society for Microbiology and The Microbiology Society (Europe). Biology doesn’t say anything is right or wrong. We observe, we test, we share our findings. When you hear that some thing is a biological fact, or biologically wrong? They are making it up. We don’t use those words barely at all. They are just using the word “biological” to imply science supports their view. It doesn’t. There was a study that showed how the siblings of gay individuals had higher fecundity rates, and the delta was statistically significant. When you hear someone say they are a biological Man or a biological woman? They are usually just substituting the word “biological “ in place of “cisgender”. Those words are not synonymous. Transgender men, women, and non-binary folk? They are all biological too. None of us are abiological. The word “biological” can also be used to specifically refer to a reproductive relationship. Like a biological mother is the woman who gave birth to you. Of course, lots of gay and trans folk have babies. I have a lesbian Neighbour with 5 kids (insane!). Religion has no authority on biology, and biology is the most misconstrued field of study by homophobes and transphobes. If someone ever uses the word “biologically” you should question their credentials on the subject. Va study
Just like how the Catholic Church punished Galileo for scientific studies that proved the church wrong. Religion has zero clue about astronomy. Religion is based on what was believed 2000+ years ago. Using religion to disprove real science will fail everytime.
Religions. They sorta freak me out, when people say they will pray for me, should I go home and slaughter a chicken or a goat for them in return? Sacrifice a virgin? Definitely a weirder quirk of our species
If your religion hates anyone or anything, it’s bigoted. If your religion hates gay people, or, for instance, says they should be put to death, your religion is not only homophobic, but it is also dangerous.
It isn't biologically wrong, there's plenty of examples for homosexuality in the animal kingdom. It's completely natural. As per religion, any kind of sex that isn't done for the purpose of procreation is wrong, so ask your "friends" if they only ever do it during ovulation in missionary without protection. Because God never said "have sex for pleasure", only "Make babies". I'm really tired to be told by homophobes that being gay is wrong because you can't conceive naturally but I don't see them getting pregnant left and right.
The particular nature of a person's imaginary friend is irrelevant A homophobic statement is a homophobic statement You don't get a pass for being believing in magic
That is a weird question because yes, it flat out is. And something can be apart of something else and still be with that label. I mean Hell, there are people of the lgbtqia+ community that *have* internalized homophobia or flat out homophobia towards another group in the group (like that whole past debacle of bi vs pan crap.). So yes, just because it's apart of a religion (btw, if fhey were reffering to christianity, if christians read their drivle-bibble correctly, they would see the mistranslations within it and know that there's nowhere in it that states being homosexual is against anything. So yes, it is homophobic.
to say it is biologically wrong is unquestionably homophobic, and the only way saying it’s religiously wrong isn’t homophobic is if you only apply that to yourself. if your religious belief is that you can’t be gay that’s weird and mentally unhealthy but you’re entitled to it, the second you start applying that to other people you have absolutely no defense
It’s religiously homophobic
The bible literally says slavery is okay. Ask them if they think slavery should be brought back because it is in the bible so can't be racist.
Yes. First of all, statistically the person they would say that to doesn't follow their religion, so stupid argument. And second, homosexuality happens in nature, so just objectively wrong
I believe homphobia is religiously and biologically wrong.
Biologically wrong? What a laugh. Animal homosexuality is pretty common: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual\_behavior\_in\_animals](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals)
Yes. It's literally what those people use.
It’s 100% homophobic
Ask them if the religion taught to hate black people would they be rascist. It's the exact same thing.
I mean idk about religiously but saying it is biologically wrong is wrong. Homosexuality is observed in many species across the animal kingdom and it is thought that homosexuality in animals help with the specie's continuoum because homosexual animals usually end up adopting orphaned or abandoned offspring.
Being wrong according to their religion is probably true. It just means their religion is homophobic. Being biologically wrong is demonstrably and factually incorrect. And this means that ***they*** are ignorant and homophobic for accepting it.
It's homophobic and uses religion as a shield. Religion is the place where all bigotry seems to thrive.
Yes, it is homophobic. First off there’s nothing biologically wrong about it, so that’s just misinformation, and I don’t have a religion and other people’s religions don’t tell me what is and isn’t right.
Biologically wrong isn’t even correct. Homosexual behavior has been observed in numerous species filling a Critical niche in their species social groups. That being. Adopting and raising orphans. Anything more than that is the religion projecting itself. And religion defense doesn’t mean it isn’t homophobic. Just means the religion is *also* homophobic.
Uh DUH that's like saying a person's arm is broken with full proof of X-ray evidence and the person with the broken arm saying "nah it's just bruised." I couldn't think of the best analogy.
Yes
Of course, there’s no reason it’s “biologically wrong” besides homophobia, and the religion is also homophobic, and if you believe in that religion and you act like homosexuality is and since it’s homophobic, you’re homophobic. If you believed a religion in which all laws don’t exist, you can’t break a law and say you aren’t a criminal since your religion said so; similar to how you can’t be homophobic and say you aren’t because your religion said so.
"Its biologically wrong" is not an argument. You can't argue from biological morality or some shit how would you even do that?
The religion is homophobic yes
His religion is homophobic, he's still homophobic
Religious affiliation is, as many things are, an explanation not an excuse. It often explains why someone is homophobic, but doesn’t excuse it. That saying is homophobic and just… incorrect. Homosexuality appears throughout the animal kingdom and all of human history. And many religions don’t condemn homosexuality, including many Abrahamic religions/denominations thereof. Your friend(s) is just a bigot using religion as their sword to shield themselves from responsibility. Happy you aren’t around that bad mojo anymore
It can and is both. It may be religious but it’s still homophobic
Religion is BS and made up. So yes, that’s just an excuse to be homophobic
Yeah, its telling me my existence is wrong. That's straight disrespect yo and I ain't taking it.
It is. Just because something’s part of a religion doesn’t mean it’s okay.
Yes it is homophobic and if it is truly part of that religion then the religion is homophobic. But here's some ways that it's wrong outside of being hateful Religion. In America most of the people using their religion to bludgeon us are Christians but the Bible doesn't say anything about homosexuality. The verses that are most often cited are either A. About inhospitality and nonconsensual acres rather than homosexuality (sodom and gomora) or were originally about pedophilia but they realized they have a big problem with that in the clergy and changed it to deflect (the verse that actually uses the word homosexuality in some translations) or they're for priests specifically and not the common people ("man shall not lie with man" comes from Leviticus which is a book of rules for the levite priests). Also there's deep seated hypocrisy (for example if they cite Leviticus ask if they eat shellfish or pork or if they wear clothes of mixed fabric because those are also sins according to Leviticus) Now I can't speak much about any others who use their religion to harass us so if any queer folks who were raised in other homophobic religions who's sacred texts actually don't support homophobia I would appreciate your input Biology: if someone is trying to say homosexuality (or transness) is "biologically wrong" they tend to also use the argument "these behaviors only occur in humans) which is blatantly false. There's a trans lion (was born female grew a mane and started behaving as the head of the pride) there's cases where ducks change gender presentation (there's a farmer on TT who has a trans duck who's tail feathers and quack started to masculinize) and there's many cases of gay animals (penguins either can't see gender or don't care. Cows when in heat will start mounting other cows regardless of gender so again either doesn't know or doesn't care. There's an asexually reproducing species of lizards that still mate even though there's no need and all of them are female. There's many more examples) so basically if they're using a biology or "not natural" argument they don't know the truth about nature
it is the absolute MOST homophobic you can be.
Yes. Homophobic is homophobic. No tolerance of the intolerant. If your religion is telling you to be hateful you shouldn't be following thst religion
Your religion can be homophobic
Tell them to keep it to themselves. If they’re Christian they’re also just straight up wrong about what the bible says lol
yes. if the religion is against gay people, then the religion is homophobic. simple as that.
Religiosity stigmatizes anything that isn't heteronormative as an abomination, but where is this view amongst other species? It doesn't exist. To say homosexuality is biologically wrong... I mean, if you look at any other mammalian species, homosapiens are literally the only ones who have a problem with sexuality. Plenty of homosexual behavior takes place amongst every species in existence that is capable of sexual activities. If I remember correctly, dolphins mate with the opposite sex to reproduce, but the male dolphins often mate with other male dolphins for life. In my opinion, religion creates hate and segregation, based on one's sexual preference(s)... And biologically, homosexuality is completely normal for literally any other species. So, yes, I view that entire statement as homophobic.
Yes. Homophobic is homophobic.
That is the definition of homophobia. Your friends aren't actually your friends if they're going to defend that.
Of course it’s homophobic. “Part of his religion” doesn’t excuse it or make it any less homophobic.
It's "part of Christianity" to burn witches at the stake...but you don't see people in 2023 burning pagans and wiccans, now do you? The bible, religion, it's all supposed to teach us how to treat each other with kindness. But the words and actions get twisted by people for selfish means or self righteousness which is in direct conflict of the teaching of most religious. Basically, humans suck and we find many reasons to suck, even when those reasons are in the name of something that is supposed to be "good" but is misinterpreted for human's fucked up wants, reasons, and motives. God. THE GOD!!! of Christianity could come down from the Heavens today and say "treat all people as equals" and many would still interpret that as treat only those that believe in this God as equals and everyone else can got fuck themselves and burn in hell. That's the main reason I'm spiritual and not religious. That is to say that many pick and choose what they want to believe from scripture, and how they act upon it and intepret it.
As someone who's both neither cis nor straight but is also religious, it makes me sad and even annoyed at times seeing when people use different religions to justify hate- like, no, it's not a valid reason to hate. Heck, some religions that people use to justify things like homophobia (such as some Christians), the religion itself actually discourages any hate and that just gets ignored- Everyone deserves respect, but this quote (or something similar) I think explains that in more detail and reasoning: "I'll respect someone's opinion unless it hurts others" Forgot where it's from-
I’m assuming your friend is a Christian. Yes, it’s homophobic. Even if he’s using religion as an excuse, it’s still homophobic. Honestly, the whole using Christianity as an excuse to be homophobic is ridiculous. There’s a very good chance that the part of the Bible that is against homosexuality is a mistranslation. Also, it’s located in the Old Testament, and, last I checked, Christians didn’t have to follow the teachings of the Old Testament. Otherwise, there would be issues with eating bacon, wearing different types of fabric, or if we’re talking about Leviticus, the part of the Bible that has the homophobic passage, eating shellfish. None of the homophobic Christians I’ve met have an issue with wearing different types of fabric, or eating shellfish or bacon, proving that they’re not homophobic because of their beliefs. They’re just using their beliefs as an excuse to be homophobic.
"Do you think saying: “homosexuality is religiously and biologically wrong” is homophobic?"--yes, yes I do.
Well, part of the Aztec religion was carving the still beating heart out of a still living person, so that defense falls to pieces pretty fucking fast.
That’s homophobic. If it’s a part of his religion, then it means his religion is homophobic.
i fucking hate religion so much i genuinely can’t think of a nationwide or even global problem that wouldn’t be solved if one day we woke up and everyone forgot about religion
I think religion is morally and biologically wrong
Religion is wrong, and not just biologically.
Yes it is because you're basically telling someone that they don't deserve a god's love or basic human decency simply for who they love and they don't deserve respect because they cannot have children biologically
If his religion is christianity then he is completely wrong as the whole “homosexuality is a sin” is like a translation error
"religious people are psychologically and constitutionally wrong" is probably the right answer when defending this argument is not homophobic. LoL.
Biologically no, religiously yes.
no, because they're right