This is a re-edit of one of my earliest posts here. Because of Pride Week and cu rrent topics of conversation and the fact that I posted it before anyone really read my posts, I'm bringing it out. It's a little wordy but the basic ideas are what I believe to be at the core of homophobia, religious tension, and the gay marriage debate. There is much more to be said but this was already a long start. Hope it is of some help on understanding the subject.

Some may ask  the importance of recognizing the difference between religious objection  and homophobia. The answer lies in the difference in reaction the two beliefs engender. It is my belief that while someone may, following the precepts of their religion, come to the belief that same gender sex is sinful or to use a phrase from Paul in the New Testament "not expedient." That same person may in addition have an irrational response to others who have come to a different conclusion and may espouse or practice  same gendered sexuality. Let's take the belief that it is sinful to eat pork as an example. One, following the teachings of their religion, may conclude that it is sinful to partake of the delicious little critter, but in this day and age their response is often less reactionary than that of the average viewer of the new extreme eating shows that have come out. They are less "creeped out" by my eating a ham sandwich than I am of watching Tony Bordaine eat a lambs eyeballs. Yet they are acting on a religious belief that theoretically has much more power to effect them than my non-dogmatic belief that eating eyeballs is just gross.  Rarely if  these days does a Muslim or Jew advocate punishment for others for not following their religious dietary laws. They don't have a phobic reaction to my diet just a religious difference.

 Same gender sex in the same way might be accurately seen as a sin by the followers of some religions it however seems to evoke an additional reaction to that, "scholarly" response...another reaction that  extends beyond the basic belief as it is currently practiced. I say currently practiced because many of the rules and regulations listed in these religious texts are now less adhered to and evoke a less dramatic response than they did in the past. Of course if one is riding through the hot desert a pack animal laden with pork and shell fish is a hell of a bad idea, yet now that we have modern refrigeration many a good Jew eats lobster without guilt. Religion, as practiced, is often practical. Laws that at one point seemed to be "written in stone" with the passage of time and circumstance go by the wayside or are modified so as to be in keeping with modern life. It became less practical to keep kosher at the same time that it became less necessary and large groups of that religion moved away from the orthodoxy and into a more practical observance.

So what the hell does a ham sandwich have to do with hating homos? I'm glad you asked. Just as practical observance gained momentum in practicing dietary laws it has facilitated other lifestyle changes among the religious. It is the increased visibility of same gender couples that has made homophobia less practical. It is one thing to despise the faceless dirty lecher that is still the official poster child of those who appose basic rights for those who love someone of the same gender and another altogether to advocate the beating to death of your child's second grade teacher. As gays and lesbians insisted on living their lives openly and honestly the human cost of a homophobic response became more apparent. The non-scholarly more emotional response to what may be considered by some to be sinful became less practical and less savory to practice. As gays and lesbians came out of the closet and as the early years of the AIDS epidemic pushed many more out of the closet the price of combining hate with religious belief became more than some were willing to pay. As homophobia became more personal it became less palatable.

As picky as we may be about eating, sex is a much more emotional subject. Sex is so deeply tied into self awareness and self worth. It is a mine field of dangerous topics like penis size,  the meaning of manhood, the purity of women, internalized homosexual desire and self loathing.  "What?! Internalized homosexual desire? Come on, are you trying to call me a fag? I oughta.... " And there you have it mine field. The real line in the sand between a reasoned belief that your religion finds same gendered sex to be a sin and the sphincter tightening response to man on man action is what the internalized imagery tells you about yourself. These probably mis-titled phobic responses have less to do with someones reasoned belief in dogma and ideology and more to do with the fear of their own responses. Take, for example, two well dressed women looking at a third poorly put together woman. The first is horrified, "How could she think of leaving the house that way?" The second notes the disheveled party and moves on. She is capable of recognizing the lack of effort put into her clothing and hair without relating it to her own condition. The first woman may have grown up less advantaged and was often conscious of her lack of ability to wear the clothes that she would have liked. The second was more priveledged and less deeply effected by a third parties clothing choice. Similarly those who have had feelings of attraction to someone of the same gender on some level are more likely to be effected when the subject arises. This is not just conjecture. An Emory University study compared physiological responses to homoerotic stimuli amongst two groups: self proclaimed homophobes and those who claimed no prejudice. Those who declared themselves to be homophobic  had a higher rate of stimulous when shown homoerotic imagery than those who were more secure in there heterosexuality. Those with internalized homophobia  were the ones with internalized homosexual desire.

 So what is the practical application of all of this? The ability to separate religious belief from our internalized response to homosexuality would enable us all to consider our belief in human dignity and basic human rights and provide a perspective that allows us to practice our beliefs without imposing them on others. Just as outdated dietary laws became less observed as their functionality lessened so too can our sexual fears become les predatory in our relations with others. As we take more responsibility for those things that make us internally fearful we can become less fearful of others who agitate those feelings that were already present inside us. As religion looks at the reasoning behind its ban on homosexuality and the religious take their own personal look at the issue perhaps they can find a way to make room for others to live their beliefs without feeling threatened. Perhaps they will begin to look upon homosexuality the way they do divorce or un- married sex. They may not prefer it. They may not think it "expedient." But they can allow for others to have a difference in opinion and take responsibility for their own internal struggles without attacking the reminder of that struggle.