4 ms·
The other comment was deleted about being called a homophobe. As I was writing it I was unable to add my comment. So I will add it here (to be clear, this is no
by nerdjon 3y ago
The other comment was deleted about being called a homophobe. As I was writing it I was unable to add my comment. So I will add it here (to be clear, this is not directly to the person I am responding too, just adding it to the thread).
-----
Wether or not you would actively try to restrict the rights of the community, there is clearly some about of homophobia there.
Otherwise why bother asking the question and thinking about it. Especially when you seem dismissive of the religion aspect when that's a very real aspect that has an impact outside of just churches.
Especially when we go farther and farther into our history being gay or even trans was far more accepted and normal (sometimes in slightly different ways like Rome) in some societies.
The harm that religion has done on many areas of humanity, like how we treat woman, should be well understood and not hard to point the same thing at LGBT+.
- friend_and_foe 3y agoWhy bother thinking... For the record, I don't think something like chemicals or whatever make people gay, I actually believe something that is for some reason more inflammatory. The religious aspect is a major driver. The prevalence of homosexuality is a social thing, sexuality is largely not innate and is learned behavior. I don't believe Roman society as it existed for example would be possible if it were otherwise. A society with institutional pederastry, where men were often expected to engage in sex with other men, one where there wasn't even a word for homosexuality, but that had strict codes of sexual conduct nonetheless, is absolutely impossible if sexuality were innate from birth in the majority of the population.