Not to disagree, but I think almost all historical examples would probably be religious in nature simply due to the religiousness of the society at the time.
Right. If the Nazi Germany isn't enough (their ideology wasn't exactly religion-centric, although there were certainly aspects of personality cult in it and in that respect it was similar to many a religion), you could take a look at Stalin's Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Not talking about communists in general, just Stalin mainly. Communists actually legalized homosexuality (among other things like abortion and divorce without specific offense from either party) after the revolution when they re-wrote the legislation. Stalin expressly criminalized male homosexuality in 1933 with punishments up to five years in hard labour, and as a result you could say homosexuals were discriminated against just as much as they were in Germany.
At this point it may be a good idea to remember that Soviet Union was supposedly an atheist regime, as the communist party - especially Stalin - didn't exactly feel like sharing any of their authority with anyone, including religious authority figures, so they heavily discouraged and practically persecuted church. Despite this, various sources claim that about one third of the population still professed their religion, but I would damn well say it had nothing to do with the policies against homosexuals (and other minority groups like competent officers) in Stalin's purges and much more to do with Stalin's paranoia and madness that probably equalled that of his western colleague Adolf.
The basic idea?
Discrimination against minorities can be used as a tool of control by regimes that don't trouble their heads much with ethics. Doesn't matter what ism or ideology or religion is in the helm at that point, controlling the minorities is a very effective way to keep the majority silent, because if you speak against the government, you're obviously one of those decadent homosexuals and must be punished accordingly.
It's the same basic idea as with rethorics like
"you're either with us or with the terrorists" (meaning if you disagree you have terrorist symphaties and should be suspected) and
"think of the children" aka. if you disagree with what I'm saying, you are the enemy of children, enjoy ruining their psyche with emotional scars and you're also probably a pedophile.
Not saying it's as bad in the US as that, but there are definitely patterns reminiscent of history here. The main difference at the moment is that USA is not a dictatorship or ruled by one single authority (as much as Democrats and Republicans seem alike in their inefficient pandering around and between Capitol, White House and Wall Street), and the government doesn't control all three branches of power (legislative, executive and judiciary power). And there's really no interest for the government to forcefully control the people because frankly they are easily enough pacified without such crude maneuvers.
No, the Proposition 8 is much more likely simply a demonstration of some people's deep uncomfort against something that supposedly violates their belief system (sanctity of marriage as a
church institution, specifically), but they miss the point that this is all about marriage as a
state institution, and since state and church are separate it doesn't even make sense to bring the church or religious (or ideological in general) arguments anywhere near it, much less the courtroom.
Regarding TrashMan disregarding science he disagrees with, well, that topic has been handled before.
Sure, you can express your disbelief to some scientific study, but to be taken seriously in the context of science, you're supposed to point out why exactly do you think either the data or it's interpretations is wrong.
For example you can either deny that bonobos have homosexual relations with each other (I don't recommend it), or you can suggest that it doesn't benefit them as a species or group, in which case you should be able to show why it isn't, as opposed to the examples provided on why it in fact is beneficial to them as a group (you can read some of them in Battuta's post earlier).
Otherwise, be prepared to be disregarded just as you disregard the scientific research on the basis of... I don't even know what it is.
