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!

[phoenixfire]

Any form? Surely you only mean those which entail mutual consent? And validity may be in the eye of the beholder. You may not like interracial marriage or elderly men taking teenage women for brides, but is that grounds to deny them their civil rights? Who is judging what is valid?

Did I ever say I was against interracial or intergenerational marriage?

Acceptance of homosexuality in the natural next step in the decrease of sexual morality in general. How about a review of where the glorious sexual revolution of the 60s has brought us...increased babies born out of wedlock and increased divorce rates with all the attendant social problems. The problems will just be exacerbated as our sexual morals continue to decline. The next barrier is adult-child sex. You are already seeing a move to open that up as you may have heard about the ACLU defending the Man-Boy love association. Unbelievable. And take a look at the Netherlands (probably a good predictor of where our cultural momentum will lead us in 10 years) where the age of consent is now down to 13 or something.

You probably need to update that statement. The American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality per se from their Diagnostic Manual in 1973.

I'm sure the change had nothing to do with political correctness. Coincidentally, the same doctor who helped with the 1973 change recently came out with a study he did showing that some gays seemed to have successfully changed orientation...and the APA didn't exactly welcome him with open arms.

Maybe you want to take that debate up with in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. I'm sure you're aware of the recently published study of the differences in brain responses to pheromones in homosexuals and heterosexuals. Here's a link anyway (and I apologize for the long url):
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/10/scien ... le_popular

There may be a genetic predisposition towards it, and if combined with sexual abuse, a broken relatinsihp with same-sex parent, or peer rejection, it can create a strong-drive that may seem totally inborn.

Again, this reasoning is a jumble of speculation and sheer fantasy. If you can offer something more concrete, we could discuss it. In fact, all the gay people I know - which is a lot - don't suffer from childhood abuse of any kind, don't come from dysfunctional families of any sort. Their relationships with their same sex parent are, if not always perfect, at least civil.

There could very well be differences in the brains of gay men as a result
of environmental factors so that doesn't prove anything. Additionally, if there is a 'gay gene' then why are there identical twins with different orientations?

You may want to view a website put up by former homosexuals and a survey of their online groups. Basically, 97% of about 200 respondents said they believed that that their father-son relationshp and their relationsihps with their male peers contributed to their homosexuality. You might also want to read some of their personal stories. Interesting regardless of your perspective.

http://www.peoplecanchange.com/Root_Problems.htm

[BeHereNow]

How about a review of where the glorious sexual revolution of the 60s has brought us...increased babies born out of wedlock and increased divorce rates with all the attendant social problems.

I disagree with your cause and effect relationship.
Out of wedlock births and divorce is more a result of lenient social services than the sexual revolution. I’ve also noticed the children of many of my Pentecostal friends go to the marriage alter after conception. It may be true that the wedding occurs before the birth, but surely later marriage does not legitimize pre marriage sexuality. IOW, do you contend that the sexual revolution affected the pious Christians equally with the heathens?
And of course there are other causes for the social ills you recognize. Economical prosperity for one. In lean times families stay together and young women are more cautious about starting families they cannot support.
To me the sexual revolution was a neutral sum gain. We get the bad with the good.

where the age of consent is now down to 13 or something.

I think it is hard to argue against this, since in most Christian churches this is the age for baptism or confirmation. If this age is appropriate for life changing experience such as the salvation or damnation of the eternal soul, sexuality activity seems secondary. Note that I’m not saying 13 is an acceptable age for either sexuality or baptism, but rather that if you accept the age in one case, it would seem you would accept it in the other.

[micatala]

There could very well be differences in the brains of gay men as a result
of environmental factors so that doesn't prove anything.

What?? Do you have any evidence that environmental factors can affect the brain in this way? It seems to me this is nothing more than an assumption on your part, and you are giving it greater weight than scientific evidence.

You may want to view a website put up by former homosexuals and a survey of their online groups. Basically, 97% of about 200 respondents said they believed that that their father-son relationshp and their relationsihps with their male peers contributed to their homosexuality. You might also want to read some of their personal stories. Interesting regardless of your perspective.

http://www.peoplecanchange.com/Root_Problems.htm

This is an interesting site. However, the survey is not in any way scientifice, and the site admits as much. This is a very small, very non-random and biased sample and so does not really tell us anything about the gay population at large. All it really indicates is that 'some' (possibly very very small number) of gay people feel that there homosexual desires were the result of environmental factors. I would note that this data is self-reported, which does not make it completely irrelevant, but does call into question its reliability.

A good question would be if this sample of 200 does show any of the brain differences highlighted in other studies. Unless you know this is NOT the case, this sample does not refute the previous point.

Acceptance of homosexuality in the natural next step in the decrease of sexual morality in general.

I don't see how this follows, although I know it is a claim that is often made. If you define 'decline in sexual morality' as people being more promiscuous in general and less likely to maintain committed relationships, than this is an entirely different issue in my mind than homosexuality. Homosexuals can be promiscuous or monogamous, just as heterosexuals. I would say if a homosexual couple maintains a long term committed relationship, this is in no way contributing to any 'decline in sexual morality.'

[Amphigorey]

Did I ever say I was against interracial or intergenerational marriage?

My apologies. I didn't mean to imply you were prejudiced. I only wanted to list other types of marriages which have been controversial or illegal in the past as illustration of the relative nature of "validity".

Acceptance of homosexuality in the natural next step in the decrease of sexual morality in general.

Slippery slopes show sloppy causality.

How about a review of where the glorious sexual revolution of the 60s has brought us...increased babies born out of wedlock and increased divorce rates with all the attendant social problems. The problems will just be exacerbated as our sexual morals continue to decline.

If you're truly concerned about the state of marriage in American, then why aren't you arguing for further restrictions on divorce or criminalization of sex out of wedlock? It wasn't gay people who created the changes you refer to, so why are you taking your frustrations out of homosexuals?

The next barrier is adult-child sex. You are already seeing a move to open that up as you may have heard about the ACLU defending the Man-Boy love association.

Pedophilia doesn't have anything to do with homosexuality. I thought we were discussing why gay people are a Christian target? But this <b>is</b> a good example of scapegoating.

<b>Scapegoat</b> 2 a : one that bears the blame for others b : one that is the object of irrational hostility

And take a look at the Netherlands (probably a good predictor of where our cultural momentum will lead us in 10 years) where the age of consent is now down to 13 or something.

Age of consent in the Netherlands is 16, the same as in most of the US, except South Carolina and Missouri where its 14.

I'm sure the change had nothing to do with political correctness.

You're right, it probably had more to do with objective science.

Coincidentally, the same doctor who helped with the 1973 change recently came out with a study he did showing that some gays seemed to have successfully changed orientation...and the APA didn't exactly welcome him with open arms.

But were his results duplicated by any other independent studies?

I'm certain there will always be a few people in American who are so traumatized by their repressive upbringing that they will seek "change" at any cost. Most professionals agree there is little long term success to such programs. Ok, so that's one unsubstantiated generalization.

[phoenixfire]

I disagree with your cause and effect relationship.
Out of wedlock births and divorce is more a result of lenient social services than the sexual revolution. I’ve also noticed the children of many of my Pentecostal friends go to the marriage alter after conception. It may be true that the wedding occurs before the birth, but surely later marriage does not legitimize pre marriage sexuality. IOW, do you contend that the sexual revolution affected the pious Christians equally with the heathens? [\quote]

You are correct. later marriage does not legitimize the pre-marriage sexuality. And yes, Christians have been affected just as much by the sexual revolution. We are inundated in the same movies, television shows, etc. So there are a lot of people who are Christians but do not have a Biblical world view because they were never taught one (which is the fault of the church) and just accepted the surrounding cultural values. There are also a lot of nominal Christians who skew the perception of the true believers. Also, all the true Christians are sinners and screw up. Being a Christian doesn't make you pious, it just makes you forgiven.

However, though there is little lifestyle difference between those who call themselves Christians and the rest of the culture, there is a dramatic difference between people who have a Biblical worldview and the rest of the culture. They have much lower rates of divorce, lower rates of bankruptcy, etc. See barna.org for the exact study.

Whatever the dominant religion is in an area, there will be people who claim to belong to that religion to just to fit in, or because they were brought up that way etc. Therefore, American Christianity is not really a very good reflection of the true faith. If you want to see true Christianity you need to go to parts of the world where they are being killed and thrown in prison for their faith.

I think it is hard to argue against this, since in most Christian churches this is the age for baptism or confirmation. If this age is appropriate for life changing experience such as the salvation or damnation of the eternal soul, sexuality activity seems secondary. Note that I’m not saying 13 is an acceptable age for either sexuality or baptism, but rather that if you accept the age in one case, it would seem you would accept it in the other.

This makes no sense. By this logic there should be one age where people are allowed to do evertying. I suppose we should let them drive and drink at 13 too? And be treated as an adult in the court system? And let them drop out of school and do whatever they want?

Sex and baptism are too completely different things. The age for salvation is the earliest age someone can recognize their sin and understand the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross and what it means. I did this when I was about 4 and remember it vividly. I'm sure you don't think 4 year olds should be having sex, do you?

[phoenixfire]

My apologies. I didn't mean to imply you were prejudiced. I only wanted to list other types of marriages which have been controversial or illegal in the past as illustration of the relative nature of "validity".

The difference between homosexuality and the above arrangements is that God has specifically said that homosexuality is unacceptable behavior, while the others are fine Biblically. Of course, you do not accept the Bible so we are going to disagree. To address this issue we really need to be talking about God, the Bible, truth, etc.

If you're truly concerned about the state of marriage in American, then why aren't you arguing for further restrictions on divorce or criminalization of sex out of wedlock? It wasn't gay people who created the changes you refer to, so why are you taking your frustrations out of homosexuals?

I am a strong suppoter of further restrictions on divorce, and it is something you hear about in Christian circles and is something that people are working for. It just doesn't get media play. We're not taking our frustrations out on homosexuals, it is just the most politicized battle in the war against the family. Since it is the big issue in the culture, it does demand somewhat more attention.

Pedophilia doesn't have anything to do with homosexuality. I thought we were discussing why gay people are a Christian target? But this <b>is</b> a good example of scapegoating.

They are related in that they are both examples of sexual deviancy (from the Christian perspective) and are both a threat to societal health which is why we are fighting against them. So it is directly related to the orignial question if the questioner was truly interested in understanding the motivations of the Christians and didn't just want to rant.

It seems (not surprising) that you (in the general sense) are not intersted in our true motivations, but are more interested in convincing others of our narrow-mindedness and bad intent.

Age of consent in the Netherlands is 16, the same as in most of the US, except South Carolina and Missouri where its 14.

Several sources give conflicting reports. http://www.avert.org/aofconsent.htm lists it at 12/16. It seems that they can have sex with someone as young as 12 if that person consents, but if they are under 16 and complain then the person can be charged.

But were his results duplicated by any other independent studies?

I'm certain there will always be a few people in American who are so traumatized by their repressive upbringing that they will seek "change" at any cost. Most professionals agree there is little long term success to such programs. Ok, so that's one unsubstantiated generalization.

You don't have any assumptions to cloud your objective reasoning, do you? Of course we all do, and i wish more people would admit that.

There is also the other website I pointed out (which BTW I know that survey did not conclusively prove anything, but the point is that people need to open their minds to other possible explanations of homosexuality) and I have personally met multiple ex-gays who are now in heterosexual marriages, one of which was a former vice president of NOW.

Of course, you wouldn't expect there would be many ex-gays, especially outside the Christian community, because everyone else tells them
they can't change and they were born that way. And if they do want to change they are not given the strong encouragement and help needed to do so.

[Amphigorey]

So there are a lot of people who are Christians but do not have a Biblical world view ... There are also a lot of nominal Christians who skew the perception of the true believers. Also, all the true Christians are sinners and screw up.

Redefining terms can be confusing in any discussion. Christianity has centuries of complex doctrinal splintering and only about 8000 sects. But, I see references to "nominal Christians" vs "true believers"; "real Christians" vs (fill in your mainstream sect here). There's something called "true Christianity" but no mention of where it is or who is practicing it other than the speaker.

... Therefore, American Christianity is not really a very good reflection of the true faith. If you want to see true Christianity you need to go to parts of the world where they are being killed and thrown in prison for their faith.

Phoenixfire, could you please let us know where is it that true Christianity is being practised?

[phoenixfire]

But were his results duplicated by any other independent studies?

Here is a website with links to lots of interesting articles

http://www.narth.com/menus/cstudies.html (national association for research and therapy of homosexuality)

[Amphigorey]

And here's a link to a page which describe NARTH's short comings.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_nart.htm

[BeHereNow]

Phonoeixfire: Like , Amphigorey I am disturbed by your usage of the term “Christian”.
You say some Christians do not have a Biblical world view. How is this possible? Aren’t Christians, by definition, required to have a Biblical world view (even though this world view may differ from person to person, based on Biblical interpretation)?

Phonoeixfire: However, though there is little lifestyle difference between those who call themselves Christians and the rest of the culture, there is a dramatic difference between people who have a Biblical worldview and the rest of the culture. They have much lower rates of divorce, lower rates of bankruptcy, etc. See barna.org for the exact study.

I visited your reference but you are mistaken. Your reference states quite clearly that “born agains” have equal divorce rate with others. “Although many Christian churches attempt to dissuade congregants from getting a divorce, the research confirmed a finding identified by Barna a decade ago (and further confirmed through tracking studies conducted each year since): born again Christians have the same likelihood of divorce as do non-Christians. Among married born again Christians, 35% have experienced a divorce. That figure is identical to the outcome among married adults who are not born again: 35%. ”
I found the definition of “born again” interesting: “Born again Christians” were defined in these surveys as people who said they have made “a personal commitment to Jesus Christ that is still important in their life today” and who also indicated they believe that when they die they will go to Heaven because they had confessed their sins and had accepted Jesus Christ as their savior. Respondents were not asked to describe themselves as “born again.” Being classified as “born again” is not dependent upon church or denominational affiliation or involvement.”
In other words, many of these 3614 persons who were telephoned by the Barna group, might not define themselves as “born again”. It seems Barna felt they would be happier with the results of the survey if they omitted a key term they used in their propaganda. It is very safe to assume that many of the persons identified as “born again” would refute this if asked directly. Clearly this makes resulting statistics and conclusions suspect at best.
I also did a site search for bankruptcy and could find nothing to support these claims of yours.

BHN: I think it is hard to argue against this, since in most Christian churches this is the age for baptism or confirmation. If this age is appropriate for life changing experience such as the salvation or damnation of the eternal soul, sexuality activity seems secondary. Note that I’m not saying 13 is an acceptable age for either sexuality or baptism, but rather that if you accept the age in one case, it would seem you would accept it in the other.
Phonoeixfire replies: This makes no sense. By this logic there should be one age where people are allowed to do evertying. I suppose we should let them drive and drink at 13 too? And be treated as an adult in the court system? And let them drop out of school and do whatever they want?
Sex and baptism are too completely different things. The age for salvation is the earliest age someone can recognize their sin and understand the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross and what it means. I did this when I was about 4 and remember it vividly. I'm sure you don't think 4 year olds should be having sex, do you?

I certainly did not suggest that there should be one age allowed for all possible activity.
Sexual activity and Baptism have much in common which they do not share with drug use, driving, legal responsibility, etc.
Anecdotal evidence shows me that most persons confirmed or baptized at the age of consent do not remain committed to a life in Christ through adulthood. Their decision was not made with full understanding. We would expect some persons to change their minds and convert to another religion, but this is not my meaning. I mean that if the promise of baptism is valid (both the promise of the church and the promise of the believer), one would expect believers to stay on the path. If the believer had full understanding, they would either reject the opportunity, or remain true to their promise. The (anecdotal) fact that so many do not, tells me that they did not have full understanding, only superficial.
Similarly, a 13 year old who consents to sex has only a superficial understanding of the consequences.
Drug use is nebulas area, but not so with driving or legal status. These are social contracts and those in authority (gov) must set the parameters.

I do not think 4 year olds should decide if they are ready for sexual activity. I also do not think they are capable of recognizing their sin and understanding the meaning attached to the crucifixion of Jesus. Certainly they can be taught what to believe concerning these issues. Knowing and understanding are two different things.
I think many 16 year olds are not ready for either decision. I know many adults who are not ready for these decisions as well.
It may be that in your case at age 4 you made a decision, it was good for you, and you have remained true to your convictions. This is not proof that at age 4 you were capable of true understanding of your decision. Christianity is, as I see it, a career choice. Not a financial career choice, but a spiritual career choice. There are 4 year olds who want to be professional golfers, and do realize their dream. They do not regret their decision, but this does not mean that they understood the consequences of their decision.
If at age 13 one rejects the opportunity for baptism, and later dies, the teachings of their church tells them they will go to eternal damnation. You tell us that at age four you had this opportunity. You had sufficient awareness and understanding to accept or reject baptism. It is my understanding that if this is true (which I of course doubt), and you rejected this opportunity, and you died at age five, your eternity would have been spent in hell. Do you see it another way?