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!

[melikio]

It seems like you're reaching out in the dark for anything to validate a belief that fails when placed under any modicum of scrutiny.

Which is pretty much what apologists do. They aren't interested in finding the truth, they insist they already have it, regardless of how ridiculous it might be. As more and more evidence piles up that their beliefs are ludicrous, they have to keep finding ways to divert attention from the things that make their beliefs look silly.

It's like the Flat Earth Society. Once we had a way of flying high enough or going into orbit and proving, for an undeniable fact that the earth is not, in fact, flat, they had to keep making excuses, claiming conspiracies, anything so that they could continue to cling to their ridiculous beliefs. Reality has little to do with apologetics, it's the fierce and often irrational grasping at the straws of outmoded and demonstrably false belief systems, nothing more.

Amen.

Sure, it is often disturbing to allow one's mindset or beliefs to be changed, but until we know absolutely EVERYTHING... there will likely be alternatives to what we think/believe is "TRUE".

-Mel-

[Easyrider]

It seems like you're reaching out in the dark for anything to validate a belief that fails when placed under any modicum of scrutiny.

Which is pretty much what apologists do. They aren't interested in finding the truth, they insist they already have it, regardless of how ridiculous it might be. As more and more evidence piles up that their beliefs are ludicrous, they have to keep finding ways to divert attention from the things that make their beliefs look silly.

This is nonsense.

It's like the Flat Earth Society. Once we had a way of flying high enough or going into orbit and proving, for an undeniable fact that the earth is not, in fact, flat, they had to keep making excuses, claiming conspiracies, anything so that they could continue to cling to their ridiculous beliefs. Reality has little to do with apologetics, it's the fierce and often irrational grasping at the straws of outmoded and demonstrably false belief systems, nothing more.

No Christian I know of argues for a flat earth, and it isn't taught in the Bible.

We did get a chuckle out of your "Piltdown Man," though. LOL!

[micatala]

It seems like you're reaching out in the dark for anything to validate a belief that fails when placed under any modicum of scrutiny.

Which is pretty much what apologists do. They aren't interested in finding the truth, they insist they already have it, regardless of how ridiculous it might be. As more and more evidence piles up that their beliefs are ludicrous, they have to keep finding ways to divert attention from the things that make their beliefs look silly.

This is nonsense.

It's like the Flat Earth Society. Once we had a way of flying high enough or going into orbit and proving, for an undeniable fact that the earth is not, in fact, flat, they had to keep making excuses, claiming conspiracies, anything so that they could continue to cling to their ridiculous beliefs. Reality has little to do with apologetics, it's the fierce and often irrational grasping at the straws of outmoded and demonstrably false belief systems, nothing more.

No Christian I know of argues for a flat earth, and it isn't taught in the Bible.

The Bible most definitely infers a flat earth, and rather explicitly teaches a fixed earth.

We did get a chuckle out of your "Piltdown Man," though. LOL!

No one teaches that Piltdown man is anything but a fraud. Bringing this up as somehow indicative of the evidence for evolution is like citing Jimmy Baker, or Jimmy Swaggart as representative of Christian morality.

Human evolution is well-documented nevertheless.

I do get a chuckle out of your attempts to distance yourself from aspects of the Bible you find unpalateable while still clinging to the idea that evolution is somehow un-Biblical.

[Easyrider]

It seems like you're reaching out in the dark for anything to validate a belief that fails when placed under any modicum of scrutiny.

Which is pretty much what apologists do. They aren't interested in finding the truth, they insist they already have it, regardless of how ridiculous it might be. As more and more evidence piles up that their beliefs are ludicrous, they have to keep finding ways to divert attention from the things that make their beliefs look silly.

This is nonsense.

It's like the Flat Earth Society. Once we had a way of flying high enough or going into orbit and proving, for an undeniable fact that the earth is not, in fact, flat, they had to keep making excuses, claiming conspiracies, anything so that they could continue to cling to their ridiculous beliefs. Reality has little to do with apologetics, it's the fierce and often irrational grasping at the straws of outmoded and demonstrably false belief systems, nothing more.

No Christian I know of argues for a flat earth, and it isn't taught in the Bible.

The Bible most definitely infers a flat earth, and rather explicitly teaches a fixed earth.

Nope. The Bible does not teach a flat earth.

Human evolution is well-documented nevertheless.

Once again, you're mistaken. You can't even identify for me, with any kind of conclusive DNA evidence, who man's immediate, direct-line ancestor was, not to mention those before.

I do get a chuckle out of your attempts to distance yourself from aspects of the Bible you find unpalateable while still clinging to the idea that evolution is somehow un-Biblical.

Show me your "missing link" and the Biblical "flat earth," and then your chuckle will be legitimate.

[micatala]

It seems like you're reaching out in the dark for anything to validate a belief that fails when placed under any modicum of scrutiny.

Which is pretty much what apologists do. They aren't interested in finding the truth, they insist they already have it, regardless of how ridiculous it might be. As more and more evidence piles up that their beliefs are ludicrous, they have to keep finding ways to divert attention from the things that make their beliefs look silly.

This is nonsense.

It's like the Flat Earth Society. Once we had a way of flying high enough or going into orbit and proving, for an undeniable fact that the earth is not, in fact, flat, they had to keep making excuses, claiming conspiracies, anything so that they could continue to cling to their ridiculous beliefs. Reality has little to do with apologetics, it's the fierce and often irrational grasping at the straws of outmoded and demonstrably false belief systems, nothing more.

No Christian I know of argues for a flat earth, and it isn't taught in the Bible.

The Bible most definitely infers a flat earth, and rather explicitly teaches a fixed earth.

Nope. The Bible does not teach a flat earth.

To be specific, I indicated that the Bible inferred a flat earth and more explicitly taught a fixed earth. Try not dodging the whole question.

6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

This passage is written in such a way as to reflect the ancient Hebraic view of the sky as a vault or dome (firmament in some translations) over the earth. This same theme appears elsewhere in the bible, where, for example, the sky is described as a tent.

No, not specifically saying the earth is flat, but clearly much more consistent with that image than a spherical earth. How would the sky be like a tent if it were encircling a spherical earth?

Consider also the famous passage where Satan shows Jesus all the kingdoms of the earth from a high mountain. This would not be possible on a spherical earth, not even if one only considers the known kingdoms of Jesus' day.

(From Job) for he views the ends of the earth and sees everything under the heavens.

(From Psalms)
17 It was you who set all the boundaries of the earth;
you made both summer and winter.

A spherical earth has no ends and no boundaries.

(Psalm 104) 5 He set the earth on its foundations;
it can never be moved.

(Psalm 19) In the heavens he has pitched a tent for the sun,

5 which is like a bridegroom coming forth from his pavilion,
like a champion rejoicing to run his course.

6 It rises at one end of the heavens
and makes its circuit to the other;
nothing is hidden from its heat.

From the Psalms. Just some of a number of verses quoted by Martin Luther, John Calvin, and other early Protestants against the Copernican system. There is also the verse in Joshua on the fixing of the sun during the battle. (It was the sun that stopped moving, not the earth). These early leaders clearly understood such verses to indicate a fixed and immovable earth. Looking at the verses, it is pretty obviously why. This is exactly what the verses said. No one would ever have concluded the earth moved except for the evidence provided by science.

Human evolution is well-documented nevertheless.

Once again, you're mistaken. You can't even identify for me, with any kind of conclusive DNA evidence, who man's immediate, direct-line ancestor was, not to mention those before.

No you are mistaken. Your logic in asking this question indicates you either do not understand what evolution says, or you are raising a deliberate straw man. Following your logic, if I cannot identify direct line ancestry generation by generation back to a certain ancestor born in Italy, then I cannot claim Italian ancestry.




We know that humans have only existed on the planet for a short time. We know there are many species that existed millenia ago that are now extinct (as well as some that have been with us for millions of years, like sharks). We can identify enough similarities in structure, DNA, etc., to make plausible assertions of which species might have been in our ancestry. Even if we cannot unambiguously determine which species these were, basic common sense (everybody has a mom and dad) indicates that either.

1) Our ancestors were among the species that existed many years ago. Since there are no human fossils in the distant past, our ancestors must be among these species or similar species.
2) Humans existed throughout history, but somehow our ancestors from many years ago have disappeared from the record past a few tens of thousands of years ago.

Given we have found fossils going back many millions of years, even if humans existed in the very distant past, it is extremely improbable that the only fossil evidence we have of humans would be from recent history.

Closing your eyes and sticking your head in the sand because you don't want to look at the evidence for evolution doesn't make it go away. The fact that scientists do not have fossil remains of every single species that ever lived does not mean the evidence does not overwhelmingly support evolution.

[JoeyKnothead]

They're an easy target, because most people are not cool with it regardless of their belief systems.

Also, it is kinda anti evolutionary as well, in that they can't reproduce naturally. I'm sure someone more scholarly could school us here.

But the most important thing to consider is that they are, regardless of what fundies would say, human beings. They deserve each and every right afforded to anyone else. Each and every. I ain't too cool with dudes marrying dudes, but that's their decision.

Of course two chicks.............................!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[faith]

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.

Hi Colarado,

I am fundamental in the truth of my beliefs and I have friends who are homosexual. They are good guys to talk to and I can love them as easily as anyone else. Two wrongs do not make a right. Because someone does wrong does not mean we should point the finger and treat them miserably.
I believe if God gave them life he has a purpose and the purpose should be to treat everyone the same. As two people of the same sex could not marry in the sense of the word. I do believe their civil partnership is a must to protect them legally.

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.

I think alot of it is propaganda. Christians are no different to atheists, or anyone professing any faith. There is good and bad in all of them. But we are responsible for us and how we treat others. It is wrong to group all believers or atheists under one heading for a true representation of their beliefs.

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!

Marriage can only be between a man and woman so civil partnerships are not marriage but a status similar for those not of the usual genders.
So any couple in the UK can have a civil partnership where they are legally bound to each other and have all the rights of a married couple.
I believe not all gay men practice sodomy. For all that is said, I know some of my friends do not because they do not like the idea of it. So people assume alot because they do not keep up with what is happening, only what others tell them.
You cannot treat people badly or outcasts because of their sexual preferences.

Love Faith.xx

[Fallibleone]

Marriage can only be between a man and woman

I believe that gay marriage, rather than civil partnership, is indeed legal in some countries, namely parts of the US, as well as Canada, Belgium, the Netherlands, South Africa and Spain. Clearly in these countries marriage is not reserved for heterosexual couples. I look forward to the day when I can say the same of the UK.

I would like to commend faith for the following comments:

I am fundamental in the truth of my beliefs and I have friends who are homosexual. They are good guys to talk to and I can love them as easily as anyone else.

I believe if God gave them life he has a purpose and the purpose should be to treat everyone the same.

...we are responsible for us and how we treat others. It is wrong to group all believers or atheists under one heading for a true representation of their beliefs.

people assume alot because they do not keep up with what is happening, only what others tell them.

You cannot treat people badly or outcasts because of their sexual preferences.

Thanks faith.

[McCulloch]

Marriage can only be between a man and woman so civil partnerships are not marriage but a status similar for those not of the usual genders.

Or between a man and a girl, or between a man and a few women, or between two men or two women, all depending on what jurisdiction you live in.

So any couple in the UK can have a civil partnership where they are legally bound to each other and have all the rights of a married couple.

So why not just be honest and call it marriage?

I believe not all gay men practice sodomy.

And this is relevant because ...

You cannot treat people badly or outcasts because of their sexual preferences.

But you can deny them the legal recognition of their sexual relationships because of it. How is that different?

[faith]

Marriage can only be between a man and woman

I believe that gay marriage, rather than civil partnership, is indeed legal in some countries, namely parts of the US, as well as Canada, Belgium, the Netherlands, South Africa and Spain. Clearly in these countries marriage is not reserved for heterosexual couples. I look forward to the day when I can say the same of the UK.

I would like to commend faith for the following comments:

I am fundamental in the truth of my beliefs and I have friends who are homosexual. They are good guys to talk to and I can love them as easily as anyone else.

I believe if God gave them life he has a purpose and the purpose should be to treat everyone the same.

...we are responsible for us and how we treat others. It is wrong to group all believers or atheists under one heading for a true representation of their beliefs.

people assume alot because they do not keep up with what is happening, only what others tell them.

You cannot treat people badly or outcasts because of their sexual preferences.

Thanks faith.

Thankyou FO,

I believe because marriage was instituted by faith that the meaning of marriage being a man and woman is what makes it marriage. But civil partnerships were insituted by man for everyone and as long as this makes them feel as if they are married in a sense they can live with and feel secure, I think it serves okay as it is.
Everyone would be happy if they could see why and clearly understand it.