In ancient Greece and Japan they had/have nothing against homosexuality, as long as homosexuals did/do their duty towards the country and society of marrying (except those that for any reason had to observe celibacy) and reproducing.

@Slimebeast

Again repulsion towards homosexual sex =/= heterosexual. One does not have to be repulsed by homosexual sex to be heterosexual, the same way as one does not have to be repulsed by heterosexual sex to be homosexual (if it would then i'd pity those poor closeted gay men that are/were married to women). Just because a sexual act doesn't arouse a person doesn't necessarily mena that said person finds said act repulsive. They most likely simply don't find it appealing, which is what i meant when I used the term "indifferent" (as opposed to "bisexual" as you percieved it).

I think that due to the cultural stigma which stems from judeo-christian ideology, many hetersoxual (and non-heterosexual) men who are afraid of being percieved as homosexual  try to distance themselves from such a label by manifesting themselves in exaggerated ways (such as using terms like "repulsive" instead of, say "unappealing'). And judeo-christian ideology does try to demonise and denagrade any practice that it opposes (e.g. eating shellfish= abomination).

Also, as for what you said regarding Ancient Greece/Rome, you shouldn't forget that terms such as "homosexual", "heterosexual" or "sexual orientation" did not exist up until the 19th century, and are most likely modern social constructs on some level. Those laws you talked about most likely targeted anal sex, which was seen as a practice that denigrated men (only the one that was penetrated). Surely you don't believe that a homosexual is a man who enjoys anal sex.

Sigh....the things you gotta read here...

They have...some men have been fucking each other since we evolved from monkeys...after all, animals also have homosexual intercourse, it's only natural that we by instinct did the same. Then civilization came, they had various degrees of tolerance towards homosexual acts, the most well known is Greece, which as everybody knows considered sex between men as the only true act of love and only encouraged sex with women so they could procreate. I don't support that way of thinking either, but it's what they thought.

In the end, homosexuality (or rather, intercourse between humans of the same gender, as ancient civilizations didn't feel the need to give it a name, there wasn't any "sexual orientation") has always existed with various degrees of tolerance. Saying that homophobia is genetic is simply ridiculous. You're not "programmed" to feel repulsion for anything, of course there are things that you'll like more and things you'll like less, and you can't change that, but it hardly has anything to do with homophobia, that is caused by how you're brought up. If you're as a kid are told constantly that homosexuality is repulsive, it's likely you'll end up thinking that, if I tell you that it's the only way to go, you'll think that, and if I tell you it's no difference and that every human does whatever he likes, then you'll grow up a tolerant non-homophobic person.

But whatever, since you say it's a fact, let's see your proof. Good luck finding it, because there's none

We're just repeating the same arguments over and over. But yes we're programmed to repulsion towards lots and lots of things. Fear of height, fear of snakes, fear of dark etc.

I'll just clarify one thing. Obviously homosexual men have had sex all through history, I'm in no way denying that, but I wasn't refering to them in that first sentence, I was refering to the majority of males. 

Marriage is no longer the holy union that it was once considered to be. It is as simple as driving to Las Vegas with the woman you met 40 minutes ago and getting married without anyone knowing. 

And then come the religious that proclaim that marriage can not be extended to two men or women. They willfully ignore the fact that marriage is no longer a sacred, religious event. Using double standards to further their own bigoted agenda.

That's why we should just get rid of marriage. It's rooted too deeply in religion for any good to come out of it. Just get rid of the entire idea and make everyone have civil unions instead.

There are instincts that are present in birth in animals.

However, there is no way for you to prove that your supposed instincts are present at a human's birth.

Don't try to pass off "repulsion of homosexuality" as instinct as it is clearly unsubstantiated.

We're programmed to fear snakes??? Of course we're not! I'm not a fan of psychology and even less of classical conditioning, but the Little Albert experiment shows how we can be conditioned. If you fear snakes, it's because you were told they can kill you, if you didn't know that, you wouldn't fear them.

Marriage initallly had nothing to do with religion (at least in Europe). Chrisitan marriage appeared relatively late (it achieved the status of a holy union in the 12th century BC if i'm not mistaken). I think it's ridiculous for religious people to take any claim to the word "marriage". If they don't like the fact that same-sex couples can get marreid, then they should simply find a new term for their religious unions, which in lots of countries are useless anyway, as they have no legal value (like in my country).

I didn't comment on its origins. I said that marriage is (unfortunately) tied very much with religion. I'm aware of its origins, but there's no reversing the effect that religion had on it.

Don't be so sure about that.