I wrote a post about this subject some time ago, since there has been a new study about the subject, I thought that it was time to re-endroduce it.

Here is the link to my former post:


Here is an article of a new study:


In short this study reveals, that the reason for homophbia is often the result of repressed homosexual feelings.

It is a new study and may very well be found wanting, but regardless of the methods by how they reached such results, it seems like a viable explanation to the immense agression homosexuality being finally accepted in the modern western society has faced. I can see, that there are basic values being torn here, but how did this particular issue become such a fundamental value for such vast crowds? What causes the anger and violence? This study gives a rather explicit reason for the source of the hate and resulting vicious circle. I for one have not been presented with better explanations to this phenomenon.

I have often wondered why is the issue of homosexuality such a big thing in many religious communities. Why, in the modern world, a morality that is based on some ancient arbitrary rules has grown to be such a big conversation. Usually morals is an issue we can only disscuss reasonably when we derive our arguments from the benefits versus harms it causes, but for some reason this conversation has repressed on level does a god endorse homosexuality or not. Well, it is quite clear that most ancient scriptures of the great world religions of today condemn homosexuality. They also condemn wealth, but that is hardly presented as an issue in any moral discourse of today.

Even the most fundamentalistic adherents of any religions are cherry picking the morals, that seems to suit their aims at any given moment. For some reason homosexuality has grown to be one of those issues, that are represented as threatening the entire cultural heritage and morality. This is an inconsistant claim, and it is not so only from the point of view of homosexuals themselves, but from any point of view not biased by fear of homosexuality. But what is the actual threat to morals?

Typical situation where the common man is angered about homosexuals is when the homosexuals present their sexuality overtly openly. The commoner is not so annoyed by the girl calendar at the car repairshop wall, as he is of the gay pride parade on TV. The open sexuality or even abusive nature of the porn calendar is, for some reason, not as serious matter as the homosexuals asking to be considered as persons regardless of their sexual orientation. Is this a mere question of hypocricy? Is it because one thing has been traditionally seen as natural part of society and the other is not? Why do people seek safety from conservative values? Why is it so difficult to have compassion towards people who have been systematically oppressed for their sexual orientation? To the extent that some people have the audacity to think they have the right to tell others, that if they are homosexuals, they should restrain from any sexual behaviour to respect the interpretation of a particular deity. May we not expect this alledgedly benevolent god to be reasonable and fair? Even for homosexuals?

How difficult is it to see, that the perhaps sometimes overtly sexual nature of the gay people coming out of the closet, is a direct result of their sexuality being repressed and condemned by our societies for centuries. It is not like the gay are any more sexually driven than any other people, but for some reason it is their sexuality that has been under focus. It is not like they brought it on themselves. The argument that a god hates gays, may be very well backed up by the hatered in the so called holy scriptures, but was it not the same god, that also demanded condemnation to be his sole right? I admit it. I have the deepest respect for people who are able to find the messages of love and compassion from their respective religions and ideologies, as I have the most profound contempt towards people who find hatred and tribal moralism from their religions and ideologies.

Most ascenine claim, but often presented even in parliamentary discussions, in this line of reasoning of homosexuality threatening morality, is that if the line is not drawn between heterosexual behaviour and homosexual behaviour as acceptable and unacceptable, how can we ask for a line to be drawn between any sexual behaviour as immoral. This simple questioning only leads to show, how the person presenting the question has no clue as to how what ir right or wrong is ever determined anywhere. Simple answer to simple question would be, that if the difference between how two concenting adults decide to have sex, and having sex with a child or an animal, is not clear to you, never have children, or pets.

One claim against homosexual marriage, is that in most cultures and in most religions and for thousands of years, homosexuality has been condemnable. This is a somewhat dissingenious argument, since so was slavery for thousands of years, but today we do understand why it was wrong. The mere fact that something is common, or traditional does not make it in any ways moral.

There are studies that show homosexuals have less long lasting relationships than the heterosexuals. If the goal of the society would be to achieve more long lasting relationships, would it not be reasonable to let the homosexuals to marry, just like any other people? Does not marriage endorse long lasting relationships?

People who oppose the marriage right of homosexuals often claim, that the right to adopt is not in the best interrest of the child? When we have so many unwanted kids and orphans in the world, how can it not be in the best interrest of the children to have loving parents, who are committed to each other, and who are not repressing their sexuality? People who sexually harass children are indeed those, both homo- and heterosexuals who have repressed their sexuality, as we know.

There is no statistical proof, none what so ever, that the children raised by homosexuals would be more likely to become homosexuals, than any others, and even, if there were, why would that be harmfull? The majority of harm homosexuals face does not come from being homosexuals, but by attacks they are subjected to from the homophobic people. In what society are we ready to agree that the victim should abide to the whims of the agressor? It is just the same as if we would agree, that the women should be governed by their fathers and husbands, but we in western secular countries are far beyond that. Even though, it also was once fiercely defended by religious rules.

Overpopulation is a major problem humanity and life itself, as we know it, are facing. We humans are destroying irreplacable natural enveronments at the very moment to gain more room for our food and energy production. This is a great “sin”, since in most religions the gods have placed the nature in the hands of human beings to take care of it. It is the one “sin” homosexuals are for sure not adding to. If a particular religion said to humanity to go and fill the Earth with our offspring, it could be very well stated, that this particular goal has been pretty much achieved.

I am a heterosexual person. I have nothing personal to gain from promoting the gay rights, exept for more open and tolerant society in general. Do not get me wrong. I absolutely think that any religious community has every right to not marry homosexuals, if they truly feel it is against their faith. However, any religious community should not have the right to stop homosexuals from getting married in legal terms in a secular state. It is up to the homosexuals to draw their own conclusions of those religious communities and the gods they claim to represent, from their respective discrimination. Right? Today there are more and more of religious communities, that do not discriminate homosexuals, so it is not like a person has to abandon any gods because of their sexual orientation.

You my reader, might want to ask me what right do I have to condemn other peoples faith and pick on them. But I hold it the responsibility of every person to stand for what is right. What is right is not determined by the tradition, or by a god, but by us humans and by the standards of what results of our decisions. Every action and even inaction has reprecussions.

Finally, I think everyone interrested on this issue should watch this video: