Why are gay people a Christian target?

[Colorado127]

I am perplexed by fundamentalist christians that are always targeting gay people. They want to pass all sorts of laws restricting rights and privileges that everyone else has. What frustrates me the most is that they seem to be tunnel-visioned on gays. There are many things in the christian bible that they could talk about. I bet you there are more adulterers in the US than gay people and adultery is a ten commandments topic. What about honoring your parents? Can we focus on that for a while? This gay marriage thing being a religious idea only? I know of several religions that encourage gay people to find partners to marry including Unity, Unitarian Universalists and the Quakers.

I believe that gay people are the target because the christian religion, or its higher ups, have nothing else to target? They have lost the battle with alcohol and porn, they used to say black people couldn't marry white people but can't do that anymore. They try to stop drugs but you can't pass any more laws about that. Ok I'm being a bit out there, but really, Christianity has been losing its control over its flock for decades, if not centuries. Every sociologist and psychology person can easily see that when someone or some group sees its former control waning they will do anything to regain it. It's a desparate act. These fundamentalist christians have to find something to rally the troops.....wha-laa!.....gay people. A marginalized group in our over masculinized, sports culture that many people feel uncomfortable with. From history, the Nazi's for example, we know that hate is an excellent way to mobilize a group.

Isn't it blatantly unconstitutional to forbid the marriage of two people? In Virginia they want to outlaw any 'marraige like' contracts between two people of the same sex, doesn't that seem unconstitutional? The sodomy laws that Chief Justice Souter condemned was obviously directed at gay men. The 14th amendments says no state shall pass a law abridging the rights of its citizens. The only people saying I cannot marry another guy is christians? Right there we have a church-state conflict.

Ok, let me have it!

[otseng]

Hmm, have you been reading my blog?

I've been wondering this exact same thing. But, as one comment in my blog pointed out, one reason is that the homosexuals are pushing for the acceptance of homosexuality in society. Perhaps if they didn't push their agenda, Christians wouldn't get so outraged by it.

Nobody is pushing for the common acceptance of adultery. Yet, it's a serious issue. And there's no outrage among the Christian community against it like you've mentioned.

I also have another theory. Homosexuality hasn't become widely accepted in the Christian culture yet. So, it's an easy sin to attack. Whereas many other things have already infiltrated the Church - adultery, divorce, gluttony, lust, greed, materialism. So, the Church can't attack those outside the Church for these things cause it would also have to attack itself.

[Colorado127]

I always find it humorous when straight people say gay people are 'pushing an agenda'. What agenda is it that we are pushing? Equal rights does not seem like an agenda. Statues of gay men kissing in the senate rotunda is an agenda, not the right to partner with someone. It seems that straight white christians have more of an agenda than gay people. Marilyn Musgrave and Wayne Allard and Bush have more agenda about gay people than gay people have for themselves, at least lately.

I have often taken offense when straight white christian white collar workers, and mostly men, say a minority group has an agenda. Was it an agenda when black people wanted equal rights? Was it an agenda when women wanted to vote? Was it an agenda when people with disabilites wanted fair access to housing? These were no more agendas then a gay persons desire to marry, have children, have a family and live that 'american dream' all the straight white christian people have. It is a right everyone should have, not just the majority group.[/i][/b]

[otseng]

Isn't it blatantly unconstitutional to forbid the marriage of two people?

And I would go further and say that it's unconstitutional for the government to even get involved in marriages at all.

I propose a solution that should satisfy the gay community as well as the Christian community. Take the government out of marriages. The government should not grant, register, or define what is a marriage. Here is one example of separation of Church and State that I can support.

[Colorado127]

I agree, 100%.

[perfessor]

Most religions do not reflect true justice. I agree that it is a civil rights issue - which comes back to Justice. Most christian denominations have a long way to go in that department.

[Crixus]

Most religions do not reflect true justice. I agree that it is a civil rights issue - which comes back to Justice. Most christian denominations have a long way to go in that department.

Implicit in the statement "most religions do not reflect true justice" is the assumption that one has greater familiarity with "true justice" than all the philosophers of all those religions, which I think is a rather foolish assumption. All mankind has a long way to go in the search for justice; Christians having no further to go than anyone else. However I think that religions and philosophies that seek justice and compassion are the only worthwhile pursuits that man has ever undertaken.

In the matter of gay marriage, I agree entirely with otseng, the state has no business in selling marriage licenses. I believe that state endorsed marriage, through tax breaks and social benefits, has played a large role in the propagation of divorce and broken homes. It is entirely too common for people to get married for tax breaks, not considering the significance of the vows they recited.

[otseng]

Most religions do not reflect true justice. I agree that it is a civil rights issue - which comes back to Justice. Most christian denominations have a long way to go in that department.

Implicit in the statement "most religions do not reflect true justice" is the assumption that one has greater familiarity with "true justice" than all the philosophers of all those religions, which I think is a rather foolish assumption. All mankind has a long way to go in the search for justice;

And to add further, what is "true justice" anyways? (Anybody wanting to answer that, please start a new thread)

[perfessor]

Certainly it is true that mankind has a long way to go to represent true justice. My not well defined point was that most religions claim to hold the moral high ground when intolerance and/or hate is a direct by-product of their dogma. They are intolerant of homosexuality yet claim this is acceptable based on the bible.

[otseng]

My not well defined point was that most religions claim to hold the moral high ground when intolerance and/or hate is a direct by-product of their dogma.

When it produces hate of a person or group of people, I would agree that it is wrong and hypocritical.