Why are gay people a Christian target?

Colorado127 · Post by **Colorado127** » Fri May 28, 2004 4:41 pm

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!

AlAyeti · Post by **AlAyeti** » Sun Sep 04, 2005 2:07 am

More than 1/2 of those that get married end it.

Knowing all that...how does gay marriage ruin the "sanctity" of marriage?
One must have a crappy marriage if two guys getting married alters your
vow to partner with your wife.

///

There is the two wrongs make a right analogy.

Also if any group of individuals wants to redefine marriage to fit every convoluted idea that can change the history of WHAT marriage is and has always been, then where does it stop?

Jockeys marrying horses?

What right does any group of people have to change what marriage "is?" If "they" can, anyone or anything can also.

If I become a Christian Pastor (no Dems) will I be able to teach the Bible as it is written?

Will any of you think it is hate speech to teach Jesus' views on "A man and a women in marriage as what God has joined and letting no man put asunder?"

This is obvioulsy completely intolerant of same-sex marriage in the Christian community.

Is it a hate crime to teach the Bible the way it was written?

It is clear that Christians are the target of someone's agenda.

Jose · Post by **Jose** » Mon Sep 05, 2005 5:37 pm

AlAyeti wrote:Also if any group of individuals wants to redefine marriage to fit every convoluted idea that can change the history of WHAT marriage is and has always been, then where does it stop?

Jockeys marrying horses?

Well, it won't change the history of marriage, just its future trajectory. But, even with Jockeys and horses, how does this hurt me and my wife? We weren't lusting after the horse. We aren't going to peek through the stable doors and see what they do, just as we aren't going to try to watch Fred and John and see what happens. Why does it matter?

You'll talk about slippery slopes, but that won't cut it. Who does it harm?

AlAyeti wrote:What right does any group of people have to change what marriage "is?" If "they" can, anyone or anything can also.

Why do you think anyone is re-defining marriage? It seems to me that it's still one person with a male brain and one person with a female brain. Why is this offensive?

AlAyeti wrote:If I become a Christian Pastor (no Dems) will I be able to teach the Bible as it is written?

You can teach anything you like. People may laugh at you, or throw rocks at your church, or flock to hear you--it all depends on what you say. As for teaching the bible as written, I might humbly suggest that you go back to the original, and not one of these translations. A lot of the stuff has been changed in the translations, you know.

AlAyeti wrote:Will any of you think it is hate speech to teach Jesus' views on "A man and a women in marriage as what God has joined and letting no man put asunder?"

Why do you think anyone considers it hate speech now? What is hateful speech is teaching that people whose plumbing doesn't match their brains should be treated poorly.

AlAyeti wrote:This is obvioulsy completely intolerant of same-sex marriage in the Christian community.

So let your particular corner of the Christian community not perform marriages based on brains, and stick to the ones based on plumbing. But don't force your plumbing-centered ideology onto those outside your particular community.

AlAyeti wrote:Is it a hate crime to teach the Bible the way it was written?

Does anyone actually do this? Everyone I've heard of--especially the True Christians--teach it the way they interpret it. I'd believe that this was the way it was written if everyone interpreted it the same way. They don't...so, I'm not convinced that anyone knows how it was actually written.

AlAyeti wrote:It is clear that Christians are the target of someone's agenda.

This is a non-sequitur. If anyone is fighting Christians, it's in self defense.

Chimp · Post by **Chimp** » Mon Sep 05, 2005 7:05 pm

It is clear that Christians are the target of someone's agenda.

Christians are squarely in the sights of the religious right. The agenda you
speak of is turning a religious movement into a political one.
Religion and Democratic governance are incompatible.

Jose · Post by **Jose** » Mon Sep 05, 2005 7:31 pm

Chimp wrote:Religion and Democratic governance are incompatible.

This is off-topic here, but I'd be interested in some examples to illustrate the truth of this statement. There's the Taliban, of course. And there's the difficulty the Iraqis are having in coming up with a constitution, what with some of 'em wanting something somewhat democratic, and others wanting religious law. Are there good examples of Christian law precluding democratic governance? (We can relate this back to the thread topic eventually, in the form of Tyrrany of the Majority, and their desired subjugation of those whom god chose to provide a mismatch between the sex of their brain and the sex of their genitals).

AlAyeti · Post by **AlAyeti** » Tue Sep 13, 2005 9:33 pm

Americans opposed to normalizing homosexualism onto our society have history to support their opinion and logical stance.

One needs to study kinaidos or malakos to see that "even" the Greeks and Romans had an aversion to the wholesale licensing of sexual perversion.

Homosexuals are no more a target of religious people now as they were in any time in history. People concerned about sexual deviants taking an active role in determining what and how society will be run is based on logic and empirical study.

Homosexuals have effectively used the victim status to find a place of acceptance that never existed anywhere in history. It seems "Progressive" politics is anything but.

http://ancienthistory.about.com/library ... 11500a.htm

The study awaits.

palmera · Post by **palmera** » Tue Sep 13, 2005 9:58 pm

Homosexuals are no more a target of religious people now as they were in any time in history. People concerned about sexual deviants taking an active role in determining what and how society will be run is based on logic and empirical study.

Though you certainly have no evidence to back up this broad claim, the issue here is not about the history of homosexual persecution, but about the state of homosexual marginalization here and now. Simply because you believe they are sexual deviants does not make them sexual deviants.

Science, though you claim it does, does not support your hatred of homosexuality. Do a little research and see that sex not purely for procreation, nor is it purely heterosexual. Throughout nature are examples of sexaul activity used for purposes other than procreation- this does not make it wrong, or base, or primitive; rather, it should open your eyes to the fact that human sexuality, and indeed sexuality as a behavior of organisms in general serves capacities beyond procreation and further that the function of sexuality is not limited to the realm of heterosexuality.

Just because you believe that the Bible is against homesexuality, and that the Bible is the foremost authority on all things spiritual and human doesn't mean you're right. Though it may be hard to accept for those whose beliefs are so strong as to never be called into question, the world of morality and sexuality is not to be dictated by the beliefs of one religion, or one group within a religion alone.

Chimp · Post by **Chimp** » Wed Sep 14, 2005 4:48 pm

Romans did have a complex set of moral strictures designed to protect children from abuse or any citizen from force or duress in sexual relations. Romans were, like other people, sensitive to issues of love and caring, but individual sexual (i.e. gender) choice was completely unlimited. Male prostitution (directed toward other males), for instance, was so common that the taxes on it constituted a major source of revenue for the imperial treasury. It was so profitable that even in later periods when a certain intolerance crept in, the emperors could not bring themselves to end the practice and its attendant revenue.

From the first part of your link...

http://ancienthistory.about.com/library ... 11500a.htm

I guess you ignored this because it contradicts your assertion.

AlAyeti · Post by **AlAyeti** » Wed Sep 14, 2005 5:29 pm

Chimp,

If you have any clue about the foundation of my concern about the homosexualization of MY country, is exactly from my concern for children.

Homosexuals throughout history have been opposed by what they want to do with children.

Keep studying. You're almost within the grasp of knowledge.

AlAyeti · Post by **AlAyeti** » Wed Sep 14, 2005 5:32 pm

Simply because you believe they are sexual deviants does not make them sexual deviants.

///

Look up the word "deviant" as in behavior.

It takes my position out of the classification of bigotry and puts me squarely in the camp of empirical proof.

It is not my fault that your position is incorrect.

Chimp · Post by **Chimp** » Wed Sep 14, 2005 9:09 pm

Look up the word "deviant" as in behavior.

The word deviant as it pertains to the study of populations is the statistical
use of the word, as in deviating from the statistical norm. Many groups
fall into this category, including fundamental Christians relative to Christians
as a whole.

It is your deviant view that generates topics like this.

If you put a fraction of the energy you put into your rants, into understanding
the terms you misuse, you might produce an argument that made sense.