Talk:Faggot

LGBTQ+ studies B‑class

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

This page has been transwikied to Wiktionary. The article has content that is useful at Wiktionary. Therefore the article can be found at either here or here (logs 1 logs 2.) Note: This means that the article has been copied to the Wiktionary Transwiki namespace for evaluation and formatting. It does not mean that the article is in the Wiktionary main namespace, or that it has been removed from Wikipedia's. Furthermore, the Wiktionarians might delete the article from Wiktionary if they do not find it to be appropriate for the Wiktionary. Removing this tag will usually trigger CopyToWiktionaryBot to re-transwiki the entry. This article should have been removed from Category:Copy to Wiktionary and should not be re-added there.

I have studied Biblical passages used in the debate on homosexuality extensively. There is no passage about the fires of Hell being stoked by homosexuals. I can only assume that there is a passage that some interpret in this way but without a citation of chapter and verse this is impossible to say. This is an unsupported (and I believe completely unfounded) statement.

To the comment below, the Bible does not use the term 'mortal sin' for any offense. This is a theological term that developed in later Catholic teaching. 24.15.91.98 15:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I may comment, being a born-again Believer I'd like to add my two cents. According to Romans 1:26-27, homosexuality is indeed a sin because it goes against the natural order God set up for the world. However, it is no worse a sin than any other.

In either case, this statement in the article should either be removed or include a citation. As it stands it is incredibly misleading. I also haven't read Romans 1:26-27, but paraphrasing it doesn't really say much. What is the EXACT reference? For example, if it uses the term sodomy, this is not limited to homosexuals or homosexual acts as noted in most dictionaries and, specifically in Wikipedia: "The term is most commonly used to describe the specific act of anal sex between two males or a male and a female. The term "sodomy" also may include non-coital sexual acts ranging from oral sex to paraphilia." —Smack416 18:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Further to the above paragraph, I believe this is an accurate reference of Romans 1:26-27: "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence [sic] of their error which was meet."

Unfortunately, this is out of context. "For this cause" is referring to statements previously made in Romans 1:20-25. (Reference here: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%201&version=9;) Regardless, it is not a statement of fact, nor could it be interpreted that the bible states the "fires of Hell being stoked by homosexuals." based on Romans 1:26-27.

As stated in the Wikipedia article: "Alternatively, the Bible is claimed to refer to homosexuals stoking the fires of hell (Sodom and Gomorrah)." Any Tom, Dick, or Priest could back this statement up, sure. It only takes one person to state this claim, technically. But, where is the citation? And is it enough if a single person or small group of people make a statement that has no clear relation to the source material. Really, why is this misleading statement still published in this article? —Smack416 18:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

For clarity: The Bible and Catholicism do not state that homosexual people are going to hell, but that the act of homosexual intercourse is a mortal sin, falling into the category of lust called "the unnatural vice". Saying that all homosexuals are going to hell would be cruel, since people who are born with the inclination would be condemned from birth, no matter what they did.

EDIT: and this isn't a diatribe on religion, it is an explanation as to why I changed the paragraph under "Biblical Allusion".

Don't give an Ameriflag 21:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Long winded theology aside, many Christian denominations also believe that Homosexuals are homosexual by their actions, and can be "cured" of what they see as a disease. Eedo Bee 16:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst "poof" and "queer" are very common British English terms, I have never heard "batty boy" used outside of rap music. I'm not sure it's fair to say that it's a common British English term… — OwenBlacker 22:34, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)

It's actually Jamaican, I think. Tuf-Kat 23:51, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, apparently so, according to batty boy. Tuf-Kat 23:51, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

And while we're on the subject of brit slang, what the hell is up with faggot meaning someone SILLY OR FOOLISH LIKE A BUNCH OF STICKS EH WHAT PIP PIP? Are you people stuck in some kind of 19th century time warp here?

A lot of black british males use batty boy, or "batty boieeee". Take me word for it, I've been called it many a times in Northern England myself (meeep). [date]

It's also been popularised somewhat by Ali G, though it's unlikely people who get it from him use it seriously. I have to say, by the way, that I've never heard or used faggot to mean silly or foolish. To me (except in American films) it's always been a kind of pork meatball; and a fag is a cigarette Garik 14:35, 16 May 2006 (BST)

• Support. Exploding Boy 21:16, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Also Support. --Bcshell 05:09, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support - "fag" is the more common usage today, but they are essentially the same word with the same cultural elements that should be documented by WP. -Harmil 12:40, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Followup: When they are merged, the target should either be Faggot (slang) or Fag (slang), but not Fag (pejorative), since the word is not always used in a pejorative sense. -Harmil 23:26, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was bold, and went ahead and did the merge. I chased down all of the old links and updated as well. Since Fag (pejorative) was so short, there was little to merge. Just the mention of current use in the UK, so I pulled that over and redriected. -Harmil 17:19, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Slang is a very biased term that implies judgments about the value of a word based on who uses it and in what context. It carries with it a negative connotation about both the word and its users. I think this page should be moved to Faggot (epithet). Any comments? Dave 05:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to point out that while the new page name doesn't bother me all that much, the above makes no sense at all. Slang is simply common usage, and I have no idea what the "value of a word" is. Value in what units or relative to what? "Yo mamma" is slang. That doesn't make it particularly good or bad, but it probably indicates that your expected not to use it when writing in a formal or educational context. "Fag" is also a slang term and the same applies. -Harmil 02:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've lived in England all my life and have only ever heard the word fag used to mean a cigarette. This is the case in both the north and South of England, to an extent that most English people would be confused to hear a person refered to as a fag (at least initially.) In recent years, its use in American films has allowed English people to understand the reference, but fag is always used to mean a cigarette and is inoffensive. In no way would the word be associated with homosexuality, even by a homophobic or homosexual English person. Ian Evans 16 January 2006

That may be the case in England, but, if you noticed, at the beginning of the article it says "In common American usage". This is an article about the American derrogatory term.

Yes, but I think Ian Evans was talking about the British Slang section of the article. I'm from Wales, and I've lived in England and Scotland too. Although I've never heard a Brit use the word to mean 'gay', I think most would understand it to have that meaning if the speaker had an American accent. Garik 18:39, 10 May 2006 (BST)

===I couldn't disagree more with Ian Evans. I grew up in the SW of England where we frequently used the word as a derogatory insult (as well as its common slang term for cigarette). This was and still is the same in London where I live now.

An epithet is something like a nickname or a title added to a person's name, such as Alexander the Great. "Faggot" would only be an epithet if it was used in a similar way, such as Alexander the Faggot. TharkunColl 23:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• An epithet is indeed a nickname or title "imposed" on someone, and thus it can be either complimentary or insulting. You've given examples of both. Which one is which depends on your POV. Either way, young Alex was famous among all his men for having the biggest... sword. >:) Wahkeenah 00:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lately the younger generation seems to use fag/faggot as a general purpose insult with no set meaning and no care towards sexual orientation at all. How much of such a trend has to go on before it warrants a mention here? Howdoesthiswo 15:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, I couldn't disagree more. While straight people who use that word may feel like it is not offending anybody or targeting anybody in particular, that word plays a vital role in the enforcement of heteronormative gender roles in American public schools. In my opinion, while it is easy for straight people to believe that they are not hurting anybody in uttering things like "fag", it is the people to whom this word applies that offense in that word is obvious. Fokion 04:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it hurts or not isn't the point. The point is that it is used that way, undeniably. A huge number of people, especially younger people, use "faggot" in the same way they use "loser." Many people who use that word, especially people without much experience with gay culture, think nothing of gays when they use it. While it shouldn't be a huge factor in the article, it should most definitely be discussed.--Josh 06:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simply stating such would be original research, however, if you can find an authoritative source that confirms your understanding, you should cite it in the article. -Harmil 02:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's just tangential though, because there are so many things throughout wikipedia and even in this article that do not have citations. Take the sentence "'Fag' and 'Faggot' have historically been two of the most offensive terms that could be addressed to an American man or adolescent boy.", for instance. It seems as though this statement is "pending citation", but has been allowed in without it because no one has come forward who disagrees with it and challenges it. It is quite false to say that one must cite sources on wikipedia. If this were true, the encyclopedia would be much smaller from all the deletions. It is good that we do not delete material without citations that seems credible or widely held to be true, because if no one challenges it, it is like a work in progress, pending citation. And as this usage of fag is very widespread, I think all contributors will fall into two categories: those who are familiar with this usage and will allow a discussion of it pending citation, and those who are unfamiliar with it but do not necessarily believe it not to exist. Thus no one will come forward to challenge its accuracy until someone finds appropriate examples in mainstream communication, which, in any event, should not be hard to find. Of course, you may just reiterate the "policy", but it still seems that wikipedia's articles widely lack appropriately extensive support while nonetheless being pretty accurate, because people will cut out false stuff they "know" to be false and leave in stuff they have no first-hand knowledge of or know to be true. In fact, Wikipedia IS original research, or, rather, we cite our intellects when editing articles. Only obscure or controversial topics have a more urgent need for citation, because in the first case, few people will know anything about the topic, and in the second, different people will have different viewpoints. This usage of faggot is neither obscure nor controversial, and precedent suggests it be allowed in, unless someone believes it to be false152.163.100.8 00:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

faggots come from the english west midlands, a Black_Country(the part of the country where all the black smoke used to be) dish called "faggots and peas", pronounced faggytsunpays its like bits a meat n onions with like a skin, in a brown ball, served with gravy, I dunno how you make em you have to ask the people at the "black country living museum" to get the most authentic recipy. its usually served with gravy, the peas can be mushy. where I live on the south staffordshire black country border we tend to use other worlds like sheartlifta qaya, qayabugga, puffta,, wolly wufta, arse bandit, qayer ba*****, the other words are starting to apppear such as faggot buts thats only because of the jamaican immigrants and on the television, it may of been an old word preserved in american english that wants to reapear in the mother country, maybe americans have forgotten what faggots really are and what they tasted like after they lived in the new country for too long. I've seen faggot in hhhhholliwood movies most the time the people who say it have southern accents, I dont think it origonated from the northen states, or maybe its both, in some small area of ingland the word never completly died out, because where i live faggot for a gay person is quite common, i also happen to live in the place where faggots were first eaten.

-paul — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.21.10 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Missing is a section on the art and practice of faggotry.

Please add the following: Daily Kos. "Democrats and the faggot problem.", "Who invited the little faggot?", and "When is a faggot just a bundle of sticks?" [[1]] [[2]]--—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.232.222.5 (talk • contribs) .

Why don't you add it? garik 17:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have also heard "fag" use as a transitive verb in England. It means to wear out or tire. I think this is why public school boys were said to "fag" for the older boys when they ran errands. They would often serve them sexually. It was also used as a noun for such boys. I think it is commonly thought that a cigarette is a fag because it makes you short of breath to smoke them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.55.201 (talk • contribs) 10:02 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes but its likely the uses of 'faggot' and 'fag' are connected (it also makes sense that cigarettes are called fags on that ground) Like the article points out the words have a number of uses and have a number of ways they are also used to be derogatory. But something I think people might be missing is its likely that there is no completely direct connection to homosexuality; that it was sort of used at different times as more general term and form of derision, and only became narrowed down to homosexuality later when the more general language went out of fashion. Or in a alternatively but in a similar sense there were just a collection of uses that owed to many different derivations into derogatory uses because of the similarity. (words like 'dog' are used in different types of ways for derision)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianshapiro (talk • contribs)

Brian - no; OED sees no connection between faggot (from French) & fag (origin unclear, perhaps from flag in the sense of getting tired, around which most of its many meanings cluster. The cigarette meaning comes from fag-end (see below), coming to mean the whole cigarette. first citation 1888, when they were still supposed to improve breathing etc. Johnbod 02:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted the following:

• It is also possible that the meaning derives from the use of the word as a derogatory term for street prostitutes, female and male, because of their association with the gutter, where "faggot-ends" (or fag-ends) of meat were thrown by butchers.[3]

(and the ref, which I'll add below)

- because it is not supported by the OED reference given, and the OED has no mention of "faggot-end" at all; it is "fag-end", still in common use in the UK,OED 2: "the last part or portion of anything", deriving from OED 1:"the last part of a piece of cloth". Nor is "faggot-girl", supposed C19 British, in the OED. Reference? Where the butchers throwing meat into the street come from who knows. The mutton quote comes from 1613; the prostitutes supposedly from the late C19 (see below). This non-association seems to have survived any number of edits on this article, but its time has come.

This is a fairly ancient version of the section (lost date,sorry): " Prostitution + "Faggot" - It is more likely this use of faggot was originally a derogatory term for street prostitutes, female and male, because they were associated with "the gutter", where "faggot-ends" of meat were thrown by butchers. The term "faggot girls" for prostitutes is attested from the late 19th century. Often perceived still as gender traitors, homosexual men are still often spoken of as "girls," and there were probably a number of male prostitutes at the same time referred to as "faggot boys". In either case, it would be a short leap from "faggot girl" meaning "prostitute" to "faggot" meaning "homosexual male"—probably starting with male prostitutes who tend to serve primarily or exclusively male customers." Johnbod 01:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

lost the reference of course - but it will be in the history Johnbod 01:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

all this was in the "etymology" section of course Johnbod 01:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if this has already been covered here, but it seems to me like the "British meanings" section needs to be removed from the article.
It has nothing to do with americanizing wikipedia, or anything like that. It's just that this is specifically an article about using 'faggot' as an insult. And while although 'fag' is an entirely valid word for a cigarette, I can't imagine how it could be used as both a cigarette and an insult in the same sentence.
I hope I'm making myself clear here; I might be rambling. The disambiguation page for 'fag' (rightly) includes the link to cigarettes. But the article specifically for the insult really shouldn't. (or, at the very least, shouldn't have an entire section on meat and cigarettes) Bladestorm 18:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No 1) it's relevant for the origins of the epithet, if only to rule out some popular misconceptions - there used to a load of fanciful nonsense on this. 2) the article needs to define the limits of the epithet by covering different meanings Johnbod 18:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1) No, the etymology section is relevant for the origins of the epithet. 2) Cigarette is not a meaning of specifically the insult. See the difference? Cigarette is a meaning of 'fag'. Cigarette is not a way of interpreting 'faggot' if you first specifically clarify that you intend it as an insult. Bladestorm 04:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See section below - this article attracts so much nonsense that it is best to stake out the whole linguistic area in an accurate fashion, otherwise you will have (as we have had in the past) that the Uk cigarette meaning comes from burning gays (although using them to light witches is new). Johnbod 02:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

homosexuals were supposedly burnt at the stake in medieval England. More accurately, they were doused in fuel and used in place of sticks for the burning of supposed witches. Surely that can't be right??? They might indeed have been burnt at the stake as heretics, but used as mere kindling to burn witches?--Ramdrake 15:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I find this very odd as well. Now most sources I've read certainly indicate that burning has never been the normal punishment for homosexuals in Britain. And burning homosexuals as heretics is not the same as burning them for homosexuality — particularly as that was made a crime in itself. Has anyone read this Homophobia book? How well-researched does this item appear? Either way, the burning-at-the-stake story is highly unlikely to have much to do with the modern offensive use of the word. garik 15:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although this is "original research", after learning the original meaning of faggot, the first connection I made was that gay men are people who put their "sticks" together. Is there any chance that this is a source for the word? 68.166.67.241 01:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. garik 23:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is incredibly biased towards Miss Coulter. It doesn't include her response to the incidents nor the context in which the word was used.

On October 3, a vandal blanked several sections. Later, Bakilas (talk · contribs) restored much of the vandalized content, but seems to have missed some of it. If you look at the diff from before to after, a section was dropped in Balilas's edit. It's not clear if this was intentional, since no edit summary was left. As this was a helpful, and contextually useful section, I'm going to restore it. If anyone has problems with that, please discuss. Note: this is not new content, it's actually quite old. -Harmil 15:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey fellas, I'm not sure if anybody is actively editing this article, but I'm going to contend the statement that "The term is often used by young people as a synonym for words such as jerk (i.e. "What a jerk!" becomes "What a faggot!")". Do be honest, I have never heard anybody use this term as lightly as "jerk". In fact, in Oregon, it's quite possibly the most vulgar word period. It's an unspeakable, like Nigger. In fact, I've heard it less often than that. If this is not the case in other places, then the statement needs a qualifier on it, such as "many young people in Australia...", however if it is the case, then the statement needs to be removed. I'll wait around for a day or two, and if nobody responds, or if responses are in consensus, I'll remove the passage. Xeinart 21:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC) Since nobody has said anything, I'm going to remove the aforementioned line. It was poorly placed in the article anyway. Xeinart 02:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sad that my edits seem to have been come just before an edit war. That said, to go on a revert to an arbitrary version of the article is not an appropriate way of dealing with edit wars. The general policy is for the article to become protected until the issue has been resolved. Now, I'm going to re-implement my edits, with the knowledge that somebody will construe this as contributing to the edit war. If you have an issue with it, come discuss it on the talk page like a civilized editor. Xeinart 22:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Faggot (epithet), recently, have both increased internal contradiction (e.g. stating the claim that the term stems from the burning sticks meaning, when later sections bring this into question), and introduced a great deal of original research with respect to the meaning of certain passages in The Bible. If you have a point to make, there are many discussion forums on which you could do so. I invite you to contribute to and improve the article, but bringing your own personal debates to the article isn't the way to accomplish that. Thanks. -Harmil 21:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your frankness, but of course the section like anything else here, is one in a state of development. Not to mischaracterise your criticism, but you arent arguing against using the Bible as a source, are you? If you can, can you please identify which statements you think are claims and interpretations. Thanks. I'll see you at the talk page shortly. -Stevertigo 21:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, your edits sought to establish a connection (which is unsourced, and appears to be OR) between a particular passage in The Bible and a particular, hypothetical origin of the word "faggot". You then continue on, in an analysis of the biblical take on homosexuality. The former is, as far as I can tell, not a consensus as you indicated by re-writing the intro. The latter is simply not appropriate for the article at all, as it's an analysis of homosexuality (from a religious standpoint), not information about the word "faggot". -Harmil 21:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of making blanket judgments, please take the issue to the talk page. I will see you there. -Stevertigo 22:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Im moving your comments from my talk to that talk page. -Stevertigo 22:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harmil, a couple questions for you:

• Do you have a problem with referencing the Bible?
• Are you asserting that the specific word "faggot" has to be used in the Bible for it to be relevant?
• Are you arguing that the Bible is not as relevant as other sources in indicating (at least as a possibility) the meaning of a term?
• Are you claiming that a religious viewpoint is invalid?
• Are you claiming that there is no connection between the religious concept of "hell" and the religious criticism of homosexuality? -Stevertigo 22:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stevertigo

I would agree with Harmil in that perhaps the entries may be more appropriate for an article on homosexuality under the Christian perspective with citations of point of view. I for one didn't know that the word "faggot" had other meanings beyond an epithet. So, I guess I strongly agree with Harmil. PEACETalkAbout 22:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This seems reasonable, provided of course that some basic footprint is left here, which points to that article. -Stevertigo 22:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Agree While you have many interesting ideas, Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own research. If you have a verifiable source for your information, that's different, but we cannot have original research on Wikipedia. Also, it's important to realize that Wikipedia does not attempt, nor wish, to deal with every possible aspect of every topic. Whether there is, in some conservative religions, or not a relationship between hell and homosexuality has little to do with this epithet. Finally, I hope that it is fully impressed on you that the possibility of an origin is original research. If a reliable source said, "this is a possible place the word comes from" you could cite that. At present, it's still original research, which is against the rules. Xeinart 22:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SV

I dislike this characterization of "original research" - itself an easy pejorative that often tries to takes the place of discussion. As for verifiable sources, someone here has to answer my questions: Are you arguing that the Bible is not as relevant as other sources in indicating (at least as a possibility) the meaning of a term? Do you have a problem with referencing the Bible? Are you asserting that the specific word "faggot" has to be used in the Bible for it to be relevant?

"Also, it's important to realize that Wikipedia does not attempt, nor wish, to deal with every possible aspect of every topic." This is somewhat in contradiction to our mandate. Certainly there are fringe claims which can be excluded, but here you seem to be asserting that the Bible is equivalent to a fringe claim. Certainly that can't possibly be a valid argument. Likewise, if you look up the meaning of the word encyclopedia, you can sort of understand the inclusionist viewpoint. Where is Harmil by the way? It seems strange that he's chosen to remain uninvolved in this discussion. -Stevertigo 22:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you can provide some published analysis that links the word "faggot" with the biblical passages you include, then it does indeed look like Original Research. "The Bible" as a source isn't the problem; it's the extrapolation you make. CovenantD 23:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A primary interpretation is that the term has a religious meaning or connotation. For example, in the Biblical Gospel of John, chapter 15, verses 5-6, Jesus says:

5) I am the [true (from 15:1)] vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing. 6) If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.

In the context of Christian religious belief, the terms typically have religious and not necessarily literal meaning, where "the fire" refers generally to hell. Whom is considered to have be "cast forth" and "withered" is naturally quite subjective, but in religious context, such judgements are said to be made by God, not by man. But where man does make such judgment, heretics, those who refuse religious conversion, those who practice what is perceived as idolatry, pagans, or anyone outside of the norms for religious and social character (however these are defined, locally or universally) may hence qualify. Effeminate or homosexual people have been standard targets of religious condemnation for since the beginnings of Abrahamic civilization, as Jewish Bible scriptures collectively identify various ethnic and behavioral traits as being the marks of an enemy. For example in the Book of Kings chapter 15 verses 11-12 (Douay translation):

11) "And Asa did that which was right in the sight of the Lord, as did David, his father [...] 12) And he took away the effeminate out of the land, and removed all the filth of the idols, which his fathers had made."

The translation of "effeminate" in the Douay version is not univerally accepted, and varies, most translations using the term "sodomites". Others used the term "male cult prostitutes" or "male temple prostitutes." The Young's Literal Translation uses the term "whoremongers", giving a much broader meaning. The New International Version explicitly (and controversially) translates the term as "homosexual."[3] (See Effeminacy#The_Bible)

Hence from the Abrahamic religious point of view, the connotation between a religious condemnation of those "cast away" (sometimes called "tares") and homosexuals is not coincidental. In secular terms, the Biblical accounts describe in a historical way how a people's prosperity can bring about a state of decadence, in which people turn to the search of artificial or self-serving pleasures (hedonism) rather than to God or nature. Religions condemn such decadence because they view it as either corrupting to the society, or as a symptom of a deeper spiritual corruption, referred to in religious terms as "idolatry" (hence 'an offense to God').