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!

[Chancellor]

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]

Addressing your second paragraph: yes, it was an agenda when blacks wanted equal rights, when women wanted the vote, when people with disabilities wanted access to fair housing, etc. You make "agenda" sound like it's a bad word.

The issue here is that real Christians (those who are born again and accept the Bible as the inspired, inerrant, written revelation of God) believe homosexual attraction to be contrary to God's created design (and, thereby, contrary to nature) and that homosexual activity (embracing and acting on one's same-sex attraction through romantic relationships, sex, adopting a homosexual "identity," living a lifestyle that revolves primarily around one's being homosexual, etc.) is sin. That's the real issue here. Forget the people in the Christian America cult that believe homosexuality causes the downfall of entire civilizations. Forget those preaching the false gospel of "family values" who claim that homosexuality is a threat to "the family." It all comes down to two things: 1) homosexual attraction is contrary to God's created design for male and female (and, thus, contrary to nature) and; 2) homosexual relationships are sinful. Why should rights be granted on the basis of sinful behavior? How is the homosexual demand for equal rights different from that of polygamists or zoophiles or pedophiles (and don't give me this nonsense about consent: homosexuals claim to have been born with their attraction and, so, choice is not the issue)? Why should rights be granted to homosexuals but not to rapists? Why should rights be granted to homosexuals and not to pedophiles? Why should rights be granted to homosexuals and not to adulterers? Why should rights be granted to homosexuals and not to pet lovers? There is nothing inherent in homosexuality that makes it different from pedophilia or zoophilia (all three are sexual/romantic attractions that are contrary to nature). There is nothing inherent in homosexual behavior that makes it different from adultery (God considers both to be sin and both involve sexual/romantic behavior outside of opposite-sex marriage).

The homosexual "agenda" is the attempt to force society to declare their unnatural attraction and sinful behavior to be natural and perfectly acceptable.

[Chancellor]

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.

The only way government is really involved in marriage is in relation to the rights and privileges government chooses to grant people in that particular relationship. So, to that extent, government must be involved in marriage. It has nothing whatsoever to the religious sacrament of marriage.

[Chancellor]

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.

People who make that particular kind of statement don't know what "true justice" is. True justice would be for God to cast every human being into the lake of fire right at this very moment. "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." But God chooses to show grace (by allowing us even to draw breath from moment to moment) and mercy (by not dealing with us according to our sins).

"It is of the Lord's mercies that we are not consumed..."

[otseng]

The only way government is really involved in marriage is in relation to the rights and privileges government chooses to grant people in that particular relationship. So, to that extent, government must be involved in marriage.

I've created a new thread to debate this - Should the state be involved in marriages?

[filiasan]

Christians are trained to fear human nature. And, when something as humanly intense as homosexuality attracts their attention, their instilled impulse is to run from or, more often than not, oppose it with big words and far-fetched actions.

[otseng]

Christians are trained to fear human nature.

I must have missed that class in my Sunday School. How are Christians taught to fear human nature?

[filiasan]

To submit to your human desires (btw, I'm not saying that homosexuality is a human desire for all, just saying it's true for someone of course) means burning forever in a lake of fire. Now don't tell me that you're not afraid of this! It's the whole reason why Christians, in general, suffer themselves. So they won't go to hell. Also, to oppose such humanistic things make a Christian feel better...just knowing that they're all fighting against something "wrong" ultimately makes them more "right". Am I wrong?

[otseng]

To submit to your human desires (btw, I'm not saying that homosexuality is a human desire for all, just saying it's true for someone of course) means burning forever in a lake of fire.

I submit to many human desires - eating when I'm hungry, expressing my musical desire by blowing on a harmonica, enjoying the benefits of the married life with my wife, jumping into a cool lake when it's hot, etc.

Just because something is a human desire doesn't make it wrong (or even necessarily right).

[Illyricum]

To submit to your human desires (btw, I'm not saying that homosexuality is a human desire for all, just saying it's true for someone of course) means burning forever in a lake of fire. Now don't tell me that you're not afraid of this! It's the whole reason why Christians, in general, suffer themselves. So they won't go to hell. Also, to oppose such humanistic things make a Christian feel better...just knowing that they're all fighting against something "wrong" ultimately makes them more "right". Am I wrong?

Though it's true that there are probably some christians out there as you described above (sadly enough) that doesn't mean all christians are that way.

[perspective]

The issue here is that real Christians (those who are born again and accept the Bible as the inspired, inerrant, written revelation of God) believe homosexual attraction to be contrary to God's created design

According to believers, nothing can be contrary to God's design - he created everything. He must have put homosexuals here for a reason.

(and, thereby, contrary to nature) and that homosexual activity (embracing and acting on one's same-sex attraction through romantic relationships, sex, adopting a homosexual "identity," living a lifestyle that revolves primarily around one's being homosexual, etc.) is sin.

Adulterers are sinners too, and they still have the same right to live the American dream - several versions of it, if they'd choose.

It all comes down to two things: 1) homosexual attraction is contrary to God's created design for male and female (and, thus, contrary to nature) and; 2) homosexual relationships are sinful. Why should rights be granted on the basis of sinful behavior?

Why should only certain sinful persons be denied rights, where other sinful persons are granted rights? Who decides which sins deserve equal rights and which ones don't?

How is the homosexual demand for equal rights different from that of polygamists or zoophiles or pedophiles (and don't give me this nonsense about consent: homosexuals claim to have been born with their attraction and, so, choice is not the issue)?

Polygamists should also have equal rights. Zoophiles should have equal rights. Pedophiles are using someone as a means to an end - they are harming someone, taking away the rights of another - pedophiles should be punished in the same way that anyone else who takes away the liberty of others should be punished.

Why should rights be granted to homosexuals but not to rapists?

Because rapists infringe on the liberties of others, where homosexuals do not. Rapists have rights by default, and lose those rights after choosing to infringe on the rights of others. You're saying that homosexuals should not be granted rights at all, even though they pose no threat to the rights of others.

Why should rights be granted to homosexuals and not to adulterers?

No, the question is: why should rights be granted to adulterers, but not homosexuals? They are both sinners, they are both "contrary to God's design" (if there is such a concept) - so by your logic, neither should have rights. Yet I don't see Fundies campaigning to amend the constitution to ban divorced persons from re-marrying.

Why should rights be granted to homosexuals and not to pet lovers?

I'll assume you mean zoophiles - and I'll contend that zoophiles should have the same rights as everyone else.

There is nothing inherent in homosexuality that makes it different from pedophilia or zoophilia (all three are sexual/romantic attractions that are contrary to nature).

Any activity that infringes on the rights of others is INHERENTLY different from homosexuality - which we'll define as a consensual relationship between two adults of the same sex.

There is nothing inherent in homosexual behavior that makes it different from adultery (God considers both to be sin and both involve sexual/romantic behavior outside of opposite-sex marriage).

Which makes it even more apparent that Fundies target Gays when they ought to be targeting a much broader spectrum of "sinful" societal behaviors.

The homosexual "agenda" is the attempt to force society to declare their unnatural attraction and sinful behavior to be natural and perfectly acceptable.

The homosexual "agenda" is the attempt to remind society that not everyone in this society is Christian, and not everyone's personal religion preaches inequality in civil rights. Not everyone's religion considers homosexuality a sin. The sooner that society realizes that the fundamentalist christian sect is not the majority's religion, the better. THAT is the homosexual agenda. To remind Americans that "civil rights" isn't just a political buzz word.

edited: for formatting