Now, I'm thinking that this is a remnant from the more enlightened Age of Legends, where such things probably truly were nonexistent. But isn't it a bit implausible? We're treated to a lot of other signs of provincial attitudes (2rivers initial hostility to strangers) and outright xenophobia (Aiel) and since black people appear fairly rare in the main continent, I would expect some prejudice at least. Or maybe a character wondering if a random Sea Folk person was badly sunburnt or something.
Homophobia, and to a degree racism, is rooted in religion, especially in religions like Christianity and Islam. These don't exist in Randland and no one ever said 'guys can't be together' in some tome from the AOL, so homophobia never started.
Discrimination always has a chronological but usually senseless origin. Rand has encountered 'racism' for looking like an Aielman because of his red hair. That came from the war with the Aiel as well as the general 'barbarism' witnessed by people when they met the Aiel.
This point might be more suited to the CMB, but: Even if we presume [your bigotry here] comes from religion simply because 1) they are common in religions and 2) both originated in prehistory, that still does not explain why religions THEMSELVES would incorporate bigotry in the first place.
The most logical and likely explanation is that bigotry arose from prehistoric TRIBALISM, either in concert with or independently of religion. Homophobia and racism are prime candidates because separate local tribes (i.e. races) were direct and mortal competitors with ones own, and infertile mating impairs competition with rival tribes. That may seem and even be trivial now, but when the GLOBAL population was less than a large modern city (as was true for most of human existence) and production levels FAR below current ones, such issues were existential ones. Religions developed in that period could not help but reflect that--any religion that did NOT would have been at best superfluous and at worst an existential threat in its own right. To say that makes religion the SOURCE of bigotry is like calling religion the source of clothing: While some religions make the claim, that most likely reflects those religions attempting to vicariously GAIN legitimacy by endorsing PREEXISTING sentiments generally perceived as positive ALREADY, not CREATING them in the first place.
Again, this might be more of a CMB point, but I suspect that is how most bigotry arose, and (with the possible exception of homophobia) why most of it persists. To take another example, women simply never worked by choice prior to about a century ago, so one could take for granted that any and all women who DID work were socioeconomically vulnerable to exploitation, just as minority races and religions were (and are) vulnerable to the more numerous and wealthy racial and religious majority whose numbers, wealth and dominance had been inseparably linked from the start. Even in the extreme colonial examples, there is a good argument that local tribalism prevented a unified response to European colonization that progressively seized control by playing native groups off against each other while subjugating (or eradicating) them individually.
More simply: No religion every caused any of humanitys problems, but all religions seek to remedy (while too often reflecting) all humanitys problems. I submit that the solution to that problem is spending more time listening to God and less trying to put our words in His mouth (by no coincidence, I believe most religious doctrines at least nominally argue the same.)
Sorry, but I prefer a world like RJs without God or religions ... Man creates enough evil on our own, add God into the mix and it inevitably gets worse
