Why is homosexuality such a big deal to some Christians?

[Lunar Raven]

what is amusing about this is that my supervisor and I were discussing the "homosexuality is a choice" thing.

He really couldnt' declare in logical terms why he believed it to be a choice, other than that a man and a woman are biologically designed to be attracted to each other.

So I mentioned how many animals will be seen having homosexual relations, and that it could in fact be nature's way of creating natural birth control. To back it up, I brought up how a person can look like a woman, be able to bear a child like a woman.. and yet scientifically be considered a man because she holds a y chromosome. Sex testing is now standard at the Olympics because of this discovery.

Could it not be extrapolated then that homosexuality is caused by some sort of genetic mutation on the chromosomal level?

Of course, he said it was still a choice, and that if they really wanted to, they could be in a hetero relationship. So I turned around said "True... just like if I want to be a man, i can go have my sex changed, and then technically, I am not having a homosexual relationship, right?"

^ ^

LOL that's how those debates always go sadly. "It's a choice. They choose to be gay." "So you could just choose to be gay? Do you choose to be straight?" [no real answer here].

It's obvious that people don't choose to be attracted to someone or a particular gender..they just are. But some people can't handle such an answer..or if they do they still think the person should go against their true feelings and live in an empty heterosexual relationship, even if it does nothing for them.

[Full_Moon_Rising]

I know, and am great friends with a great many gay women and men, girls and boys... Everyone of them told me the same thing... They are BORN that way; they do not CHOOSE to like whomsoever they fall for; and I have to say I can understand that. I do not choose which guy I fall for, if it were so, i'd probably be in a perfect relattionship, instead of being single and hoping for another guy :)
I think it IS a chromasomal thing; im going to ask my bio teacher when we get back, because I;m curious.. I really dont think its a matter of "choosing" at all
However, these are my thoughts, based on what i've leart and i dont expect everyone to agree with me

[David19]

Like LacyRoze stated, that's not true. There are many who disagree with you.


Many people may do, it may be true... but many people call themselves "Christian" if they ever have to tick a box specifying their religious affiliation, regardless of whether they ever actually actively participate. Just as many people grow up with a kind of default anti-gay prejudice, simply because that's what they're accustomed to throught the media and suchlike. But that doesn't necessarily mean that they actually hate gay people, just that they have preconceived assumptions. And I really don't think that the "choice" argument is what many people really believe now, even a majority of Christians of the more mainstream variety.


Thank you, but I already knew this. I was actually directing my question at Bartmanhomer, because I find it disturbing that he seems to think all Christians would agree with that. He seems to be misinformed.



Agreed. As time marches on, the "homosexuality is a choice" argument is getting harder and harder to defend.

QFT, many Christians (and Jews, Muslims, etc) don't have a problem with homosexuality or LGBT people, and understand that the homophobic verses are outdated. Also, a lot of people do seem to be understanding that being LGBT isn't a "choice", any more than hetrosexuality is a "choice".

[David19]

Definitely @ the last comment. I don't want to sound "agist" or something by any means..but from my experience it seems the older generations are the ones whom use the argument of gay being a choice. And of course..I'm not trying to generalize here, but I've heard the argument several times, primarily by older individuals. More and more people seem more accepting these days though, which is great.

It's, probably, the older generation who are more uncomfortable with LGBT people 'cause they're part of a time period when it was illegal, or seen as something "sinful", "wrong", "unnatural", etc. Hopefully, they can't poison the minds of younger people.

[Cassandra2]

Gay men are notoriously promiscuous. I know straights can be but it is not a cultural phenomenon. To straight people watching gays parade in San Francisco with sexual torture costumes, sex toys, bondage games etc makes straight people really sick to their stomachs. Lesbians in biker leather who like pain etc. I think you get the picture.
The homosexual thing in the old testament was a violation of purity law. Sex with your sister or mother was also an abomination and everyone seems to accept that. NO one says "It's just part of my sexuality to sleep with my sister." I believe that the gay cultural phenomena is exactly that. It has become popular to call yourself gay. It is not now popular to practice incest but I think that will probably come in the future.
Straight people see all this as a direct insult to themselves. HERE! LOOK AT THIS! I watched the gay parade years ago in DC and it was a freak show! THAT is the insult.

[Lunacie]

Gay men are notoriously promiscuous. I know straights can be but it is not a cultural phenomenon. To straight people watching gays parade in San Francisco with sexual torture costumes, sex toys, bondage games etc makes straight people really sick to their stomachs. Lesbians in biker leather who like pain etc. I think you get the picture.
The homosexual thing in the old testament was a violation of purity law. Sex with your sister or mother was also an abomination and everyone seems to accept that. NO one says "It's just part of my sexuality to sleep with my sister." I believe that the gay cultural phenomena is exactly that. It has become popular to call yourself gay. It is not now popular to practice incest but I think that will probably come in the future.
Straight people see all this as a direct insult to themselves. HERE! LOOK AT THIS! I watched the gay parade years ago in DC and it was a freak show! THAT is the insult.

Never got that... the old testament says it's against the law to sleep with your mother or your sister, but it's okay for a father to sleep with his daughter. :huh:

[debnmike]

Gay men are notoriously promiscuous. I know straights can be but it is not a cultural phenomenon. To straight people watching gays parade in San Francisco with sexual torture costumes, sex toys, bondage games etc makes straight people really sick to their stomachs. Lesbians in biker leather who like pain etc. I think you get the picture.
The homosexual thing in the old testament was a violation of purity law. Sex with your sister or mother was also an abomination and everyone seems to accept that. NO one says "It's just part of my sexuality to sleep with my sister." I believe that the gay cultural phenomena is exactly that. It has become popular to call yourself gay. It is not now popular to practice incest but I think that will probably come in the future.
Straight people see all this as a direct insult to themselves. HERE! LOOK AT THIS! I watched the gay parade years ago in DC and it was a freak show! THAT is the insult.

You got ANYTHING to back that statement up? Anything at all?

[Cloaked Raven]

Gay men are notoriously promiscuous. I know straights can be but it is not a cultural phenomenon. To straight people watching gays parade in San Francisco with sexual torture costumes, sex toys, bondage games etc makes straight people really sick to their stomachs. Lesbians in biker leather who like pain etc. I think you get the picture.
The homosexual thing in the old testament was a violation of purity law. Sex with your sister or mother was also an abomination and everyone seems to accept that. NO one says "It's just part of my sexuality to sleep with my sister." I believe that the gay cultural phenomena is exactly that. It has become popular to call yourself gay. It is not now popular to practice incest but I think that will probably come in the future.
Straight people see all this as a direct insult to themselves. HERE! LOOK AT THIS! I watched the gay parade years ago in DC and it was a freak show! THAT is the insult.
:eyebrow: And this is based on...what????

I have several friends who are members of the lesbian/gay/bisexual community and not once have I ever seen any of them act the way you describe.

[Kraheera]

I think that saying "Gay men are notoriously promiscuous" is a bit hypocritical. What are you basing this off of? Popular stereotypes?

Well, let's look at your average heterosexual teenager. Promiscuity is the word of the day with those little rabbits. Most of them wouldn't know about self control if it smacked them in the face.

Or how about desperate middle aged men who start dating a girl that just hit 20?

Promiscuity is an American Culture. Not a sub-culture, it is part of our culture, period. America is unique in the fact that it embraces such ideals as Promiscuity, while also publicly denouncing those same ideals.

[PrincessKLS]

Gay men are notoriously promiscuous. I know straights can be but it is not a cultural phenomenon. To straight people watching gays parade in San Francisco with sexual torture costumes, sex toys, bondage games etc makes straight people really sick to their stomachs. Lesbians in biker leather who like pain etc. I think you get the picture.
The homosexual thing in the old testament was a violation of purity law. Sex with your sister or mother was also an abomination and everyone seems to accept that. NO one says "It's just part of my sexuality to sleep with my sister." I believe that the gay cultural phenomena is exactly that. It has become popular to call yourself gay. It is not now popular to practice incest but I think that will probably come in the future.
Straight people see all this as a direct insult to themselves. HERE! LOOK AT THIS! I watched the gay parade years ago in DC and it was a freak show! THAT is the insult.

Incest is popular in the deep south:crown: Besides incest has a long standing history in royal families. It used to be popular for early royals to marry close relative such as a brother/sister, or two close cousins, and distant cousins weren't off limits. It was said Marie Antoinette and Louis the sixteenth were 2nd or 3rd cousins. Even Queen Elizabeth and Prince Phillip are said to be distant cousins. Plus I've read somewhere that some royal geneaologist or someone recently did research on Prince William's girlfriend, Kate Middleton and claimed they were possibly 13th cousins:toofless: So hypothetically if they got married the tradition lives on. But I get what you are saying most of us consider incest extremely terrifying.

Anyway back to the topic, I think all the years of sexual repression and anti-sexuality in the church is the reason you see so many sexual revolutions in America and elsewhere has created the climate for a very homophobic church. It seems like most preachers today would consider homosexuality the worse sin of all and even worse than the "unforgivable" sins of taking the lord's name in vain or not being a Christian.

[PrincessKLS]

I think that saying "Gay men are notoriously promiscuous" is a bit hypocritical. What are you basing this off of? Popular stereotypes?

Well, let's look at your average heterosexual teenager. Promiscuity is the word of the day with those little rabbits. Most of them wouldn't know about self control if it smacked them in the face.

Or how about desperate middle aged men who start dating a girl that just hit 20?

Promiscuity is an American Culture. Not a sub-culture, it is part of our culture, period. America is unique in the fact that it embraces such ideals as Promiscuity, while also publicly denouncing those same ideals.

It won't let me karma you right now, but kudos:thumbsup:

America is very (insert mental illness anology here) about their views on sex and in turn has created a lot of sexually dysfunctional people. I won't get into details, but I think I'm a prime example of sexual dysfunction and paradoxes.

[LostSheep]

To straight people watching gays parade in San Francisco with sexual torture costumes, sex toys, bondage games etc makes straight people really sick to their stomachs. Lesbians in biker leather who like pain etc. I think you get the picture.


How come I always miss out on all the fun? :(

[Kraheera]

How come I always miss out on all the fun? :(

I know what you mean. Next time, call me, I'll fly out. We can make popcorn, and watch the show. It'll even be free! Talk about awesome!

[David19]

Gay men are notoriously promiscuous. I know straights can be but it is not a cultural phenomenon. To straight people watching gays parade in San Francisco with sexual torture costumes, sex toys, bondage games etc makes straight people really sick to their stomachs. Lesbians in biker leather who like pain etc. I think you get the picture.
The homosexual thing in the old testament was a violation of purity law. Sex with your sister or mother was also an abomination and everyone seems to accept that. NO one says "It's just part of my sexuality to sleep with my sister." I believe that the gay cultural phenomena is exactly that. It has become popular to call yourself gay. It is not now popular to practice incest but I think that will probably come in the future.
Straight people see all this as a direct insult to themselves. HERE! LOOK AT THIS! I watched the gay parade years ago in DC and it was a freak show! THAT is the insult.


You got ANYTHING to back that statement up? Anything at all?


:eyebrow: And this is based on...what????

I have several friends who are members of the lesbian/gay/bisexual community and not once have I ever seen any of them act the way you describe.

Like debnmike and Cloaked Raven said, have you anything to back up your statement?, there are many straight people who are promiscuous, there are LGBT people who are promiscuous, there are many LGBT people in committed relationships, there are many straight people in committed relationships, there are some LGBT people who are celibate, for whatever reason, there are some straight people who are celebate, etc. The fact is you can say that "many gay men are promiscuous", but, I can also point out that many straight men are promiscuous too. I know many gay men who don't just sleep with anything that moves, I also know some that would do that, I also know many straight men who'll do the same, and same for girls too.

Yes, you'll see the BDSM and Fetish groups at Pride, but, that's 'cause Pride is about celebrating us (LGBT people), it's pretty much the only day where can celebrate ourselves, our individuality, you'll also see LGBT Christians, LGBT Socialists, LGBT Police, etc. Does it matter that some LGBT people are into BDSM?, there are many straight people into BDSM, and, pretty much, everyone has some kind of fetish. You can say "gay is a cultural phenomena", but, I'm gay, I didn't just decide "you know, it'd be cool to say I'm gay and sleep with men", I'm gay 'cause it's who I am, I've liked men since I was a little kid (I may not have known what I was feeling, but, I knew I felt differently when I saw an attractive man). The fact that you'd say being gay is "just like" incest shows a lot of your biases. It's not, 'cause being LGBT doesn't cause genetic problems in children, it doesn't cause psychological damage (whereas kids that are the product of incest can develop severe psychological problems, ranging from suicide to depression, etc), etc. Homophobic abuse, either physical, verbal, emotional and mental, can cause psychological damage in LGBT people, but being LGBT doesn't cause it.

[David19]

I think that saying "Gay men are notoriously promiscuous" is a bit hypocritical. What are you basing this off of? Popular stereotypes?

Well, let's look at your average heterosexual teenager. Promiscuity is the word of the day with those little rabbits. Most of them wouldn't know about self control if it smacked them in the face.

Or how about desperate middle aged men who start dating a girl that just hit 20?

Promiscuity is an American Culture. Not a sub-culture, it is part of our culture, period. America is unique in the fact that it embraces such ideals as Promiscuity, while also publicly denouncing those same ideals.

QFT :thumbsup:.

[David19]

How come I always miss out on all the fun? :(


I know what you mean. Next time, call me, I'll fly out. We can make popcorn, and watch the show. It'll even be free! Talk about awesome!

Let's make it a Mystic Wicks Fetish Trip ;) :boing:.

[Kra Astarum Divos]

Never got that... the old testament says it's against the law to sleep with your mother or your sister, but it's okay for a father to sleep with his daughter. :huh:

I cant vouch for what the old testiment says.... but I have horrific nightmares of picking my own daughter up at a bar and not finding out she is my daughter untill after the deed.... they strike me so hard that my heart races for hours after I wake up screaming...... its just not right. I dont know how a father could ever do such a thing with his daughter.

[Cloaked Raven]

Like debnmike and Cloaked Raven said, have you anything to back up your statement?, there are many straight people who are promiscuous, there are LGBT people who are promiscuous, there are many LGBT people in committed relationships, there are many straight people in committed relationships, there are some LGBT people who are celibate, for whatever reason, there are some straight people who are celebate, etc. The fact is you can say that "many gay men are promiscuous", but, I can also point out that many straight men are promiscuous too. I know many gay men who don't just sleep with anything that moves, I also know some that would do that, I also know many straight men who'll do the same, and same for girls too.

Yes, you'll see the BDSM and Fetish groups at Pride, but, that's 'cause Pride is about celebrating us (LGBT people), it's pretty much the only day where can celebrate ourselves, our individuality, you'll also see LGBT Christians, LGBT Socialists, LGBT Police, etc. Does it matter that some LGBT people are into BDSM?, there are many straight people into BDSM, and, pretty much, everyone has some kind of fetish. You can say "gay is a cultural phenomena", but, I'm gay, I didn't just decide "you know, it'd be cool to say I'm gay and sleep with men", I'm gay 'cause it's who I am, I've liked men since I was a little kid (I may not have known what I was feeling, but, I knew I felt differently when I saw an attractive man). The fact that you'd say being gay is "just like" incest shows a lot of your biases. It's not, 'cause being LGBT doesn't cause genetic problems in children, it doesn't cause psychological damage (whereas kids that are the product of incest can develop severe psychological problems, ranging from suicide to depression, etc), etc. Homophobic abuse, either physical, verbal, emotional and mental, can cause psychological damage in LGBT people, but being LGBT doesn't cause it.
Awesome post, David. :thumbsup:

[Dumunzi]

No idea why being gay is such a big thing.

There's more in the Bible about adultery, theft, stealing, helping the poor, those that are without, etc. then there has ever been about gay people in the bible. I think you could probably actually count the references on one hand. Not to mention that Jesus never spoke of it, nor any other religious head person in the books really.

Also, the Bible shouldn't be taken so literally. It's a book written by authors. It's best to gain inspiration from it and take it as a historical text in many ways. But then again, not a Christian here, really shouldn't tell people how to practice their faith. :)

[debnmike]

Like debnmike and Cloaked Raven said, have you anything to back up your statement?, there are many straight people who are promiscuous, there are LGBT people who are promiscuous, there are many LGBT people in committed relationships, there are many straight people in committed relationships, there are some LGBT people who are celibate, for whatever reason, there are some straight people who are celebate, etc. The fact is you can say that "many gay men are promiscuous", but, I can also point out that many straight men are promiscuous too. I know many gay men who don't just sleep with anything that moves, I also know some that would do that, I also know many straight men who'll do the same, and same for girls too.

Yes, you'll see the BDSM and Fetish groups at Pride, but, that's 'cause Pride is about celebrating us (LGBT people), it's pretty much the only day where can celebrate ourselves, our individuality, you'll also see LGBT Christians, LGBT Socialists, LGBT Police, etc. Does it matter that some LGBT people are into BDSM?, there are many straight people into BDSM, and, pretty much, everyone has some kind of fetish. You can say "gay is a cultural phenomena", but, I'm gay, I didn't just decide "you know, it'd be cool to say I'm gay and sleep with men", I'm gay 'cause it's who I am, I've liked men since I was a little kid (I may not have known what I was feeling, but, I knew I felt differently when I saw an attractive man). The fact that you'd say being gay is "just like" incest shows a lot of your biases. It's not, 'cause being LGBT doesn't cause genetic problems in children, it doesn't cause psychological damage (whereas kids that are the product of incest can develop severe psychological problems, ranging from suicide to depression, etc), etc. Homophobic abuse, either physical, verbal, emotional and mental, can cause psychological damage in LGBT people, but being LGBT doesn't cause it.

Well said, David.

'Sides, the sluttiest people I know are all straight......._whistle_

[Cloaked Raven]

Let's make it a Mystic Wicks Fetish Trip ;) :boing:.
:lol: Sorry, that just made me giggle. Thanks David.

[Cunae]

Just popping in after a few days away, and I see this thread is still very active.

But I have to tell you, it's taken a mind-boggling twist... almost like an ancient people debating if the earth is flat!!

Are seemingly educated people really still discussing these ridiculous stereotypes about gay people??? I must be dreaming.

[Bartmanhomer]

So is eating shellfish.

What does that got to do with anything? :fofftopic

[Lunacie]

What does that got to do with anything? :fofftopic

Not off topic at all. You said homosexuality is a sin (according to the bible). Iggie said so is eating shellfish - implying that Christians are picking and choosing which sins to accuse others of while completely ignoring the sins they themselves are doing.

[ignescentphoenix]

What does that got to do with anything? :fofftopic

Have you even read your holybook lately?

What Lunacie said. She is so smart. :cutie:


Oh and before you feed me the line,"But, but we don't need to follow the laws of the old testament!"

Jesus wants you to follow the whole bible.

Ahem

(Matthew 5:18-19 (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/mt/5.html#18) Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or tittle shall nowise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven. )

[Philosophia]

Gay men are notoriously promiscuous. I know straights can be but it is not a cultural phenomenon. To straight people watching gays parade in San Francisco with sexual torture costumes, sex toys, bondage games etc makes straight people really sick to their stomachs. Lesbians in biker leather who like pain etc. I think you get the picture.
The homosexual thing in the old testament was a violation of purity law. Sex with your sister or mother was also an abomination and everyone seems to accept that. NO one says "It's just part of my sexuality to sleep with my sister." I believe that the gay cultural phenomena is exactly that. It has become popular to call yourself gay. It is not now popular to practice incest but I think that will probably come in the future.
Straight people see all this as a direct insult to themselves. HERE! LOOK AT THIS! I watched the gay parade years ago in DC and it was a freak show! THAT is the insult.

I like gay parades. They are so much fun! :rollingla

[Lunacie]

Have you even read your holybook lately?

What Lunacie said. She is so smart. :cutie:

Aww, that was sweet. Thank you for noticing. :giggle:



Oh and before you feed me the line,"But, but we don't need to follow the laws of the old testament!"

Jesus wants you to follow the whole bible.

Ahem

(Matthew 5:18-19 (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/mt/5.html#18) Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or tittle shall nowise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven. )

Notice how those folks will still get to go to heaven, they'll just be living on the wrong side of the tracks when they get there I guess.:hahugh:

[princeether]

Oh... I didn't think of that. yuck.




:goodgrief

Sooo what about the Scandinavian or Russian homosexuals? something like 10% to 15% of those tall bastards are resistant or immune to HIV - I wonder what those religious asshole have to say to that.

:lol:


Ah, nuts. Well thanks for the link about this confusion. Also, Christians finds it sexually immoral about gay. Because it's a sin. If I already mention it before.

:G


Gay men are notoriously promiscuous. I know straights can be but it is not a cultural phenomenon. To straight people watching gays parade in San Francisco with sexual torture costumes, sex toys, bondage games etc makes straight people really sick to their stomachs. Lesbians in biker leather who like pain etc. I think you get the picture.
The homosexual thing in the old testament was a violation of purity law. Sex with your sister or mother was also an abomination and everyone seems to accept that. NO one says "It's just part of my sexuality to sleep with my sister." I believe that the gay cultural phenomena is exactly that. It has become popular to call yourself gay. It is not now popular to practice incest but I think that will probably come in the future.
Straight people see all this as a direct insult to themselves. HERE! LOOK AT THIS! I watched the gay parade years ago in DC and it was a freak show! THAT is the insult.

:jawdrop:


You should try to open your mind...and stay away from Gay parades. Nobody wants you there gawping from the sidelines anyway love, believe me...

[ignescentphoenix]

Gay men are notoriously promiscuous. I know straights can be but it is not a cultural phenomenon. To straight people watching gays parade in San Francisco with sexual torture costumes, sex toys, bondage games etc makes straight people really sick to their stomachs. Lesbians in biker leather who like pain etc. I think you get the picture.
The homosexual thing in the old testament was a violation of purity law. Sex with your sister or mother was also an abomination and everyone seems to accept that. NO one says "It's just part of my sexuality to sleep with my sister." I believe that the gay cultural phenomena is exactly that. It has become popular to call yourself gay. It is not now popular to practice incest but I think that will probably come in the future.
Straight people see all this as a direct insult to themselves. HERE! LOOK AT THIS! I watched the gay parade years ago in DC and it was a freak show! THAT is the insult.


How dare you genaralize my group. All men, no matter the orientation, are usually promiscuous. Except for me and a couple of my guy friends. It is a cultural phenomenon for men to be promiscuous. Basically, if you don't have sex alot you are seen as uncool. Its stupid, I know. But no group is innocent.

If you don't like what goes on in gay parades, than don't watch. The news has a way of only showing the extremes of our festivities. I also don't like your insinuation that all gay people are kinksters. Your post reeks of homophobia and stupidity.

It is not fashionable to be gay. It is just safer to come out of the closet. Homosexuality and Incest are not connected and I resent you trying to compare the two. Also, I don't think you speak for all of the straight people.

[princeether]

I've read through a lot of this thread and I think some of it raises a question I've often considered; Why do so many Pagans think it's ok to look down their noses at Christianity or dismiss it altogether?

Ummm, maybe because Pagan people are actually allowed to form opinions on other faiths? Here is a snippet of light reading that might help to answer your question...

When Constantine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_I_%28emperor%29) became the sole Roman Emperor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Emperor) in 323, Christianity became legal by the Edict of Milan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edict_of_Milan). Although Constantine allowed public Pagan practices, specific Pagan temples were torn down upon his orders, while in other cases temple treasures were confiscated [9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_Paganism#cite_note-8) After the death of Constantine in 337, two of his sons, Constantius II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantius_II) and Constans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constans) took over the leadership of the empire. Constans, ruler of the western provinces, was, like his father, a Christian. Constans was killed in 350, and soon after his brother became the sole emperor of the entire empire three years later.
But it wasn't just the emperors who persecuted the Pagans. Lay Christians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laity) took advantage of these new anti Pagan laws by destroying and plundering the temples[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)]. Theologians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theologians) and prominent ecclesiastics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clergy) soon followed[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)]. One such example is St. Ambrose (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Ambrose), Bishop of Milan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milan). When Gratian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gratian) became Roman emperor in 375, Ambrose, who was one of his closest educators, persuaded him to further suppress Paganism. The emperor, on Ambrose's advice, confiscated the property of the Pagan temples; seized the properties of the Vestal Virgins and Pagan priests, and removed the statue of the Goddess of Victory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_%28mythology%29) from the Roman Senate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Senate)[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)].
When Gratian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gratian) delegated the government of the eastern half of the Roman Empire to Theodosius the Great (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodosius_the_Great) in 379, the situation became worse for the Pagans. Theodosius prohibited all forms of Pagan worship and allowed the temples to be robbed, plundered, and ruthlessly destroyed by monks and other enterprising Christians[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)].
In the year 416, under Theodosius II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodosius_II), a law was passed to bar Pagans from public employment[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)]. All this was done to coerce Pagans to convert to Christianity. Theodosius also persecuted Judaism, destroying a number of synagogues (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synagogue)[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)].
With the gradual Christianization of Europe the Christian views of marriage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_of_marriage) replaced more permissive, Pagan views. A process which was not free of confrontation; see: History of Christianity and homosexuality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Christianity_and_homosexuality).



Saxon Conversion

Main article: Saxon wars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saxon_wars)
In 782, Charlemagne allegedly had 4,500 Saxons beheaded at the Massacre of Verden (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_Verden)[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)]. Their crime was that they had continued to practice their indigenous Germanic Paganism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_Paganism) after converting, under duress, to Christianity. Alcuin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcuin) and other theologians at the court of Charlemagne opposed his treatment of the Saxons and insisted in peaceful and voluntary conversion.[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_Paganism#cite_note-10) Mainstraim history describes these events as religious warfare (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_war) rather than religious persecution.[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_Paganism#cite_note-11) Still, some Neopagan authors present them in support of a case for the religious persecution of Pagans.[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_Paganism#cite_note-12)

WIKIPEDIA



I know a few people who seem so angry at Christianity. Obviously we've discussed the reasons for this but I've still never been given a really reasonable explanation...

Maybe you should do some research.

[David19]

Awesome post, David. :thumbsup:


Well said, David.

'Sides, the sluttiest people I know are all straight......._whistle_

Thanks, I'm just really passionate about anything LGBT.

Although, I want to be the sluttiest, I guess I have to outdo all the sraight people now!.

[David19]

:lol: Sorry, that just made me giggle. Thanks David.

No problem, glad it made you laugh :).


Just popping in after a few days away, and I see this thread is still very active.

But I have to tell you, it's taken a mind-boggling twist... almost like an ancient people debating if the earth is flat!!

Are seemingly educated people really still discussing these ridiculous stereotypes about gay people??? I must be dreaming.

It's surprising, but, then there are idiots in the world. There are even still people who believe the Jews commit blood libel.



What does that got to do with anything? :fofftopic

Like the other said, you used the example of the Bible saying being gay is wrong, the Bible also says eating shellfish is wrong.


:lol:



:G



:jawdrop:


You should try to open your mind...and stay away from Gay parades. Nobody wants you there gawping from the sidelines anyway love, believe me...

QFT :thumbsup:.


How dare you genaralize my group. All men, no matter the orientation, are usually promiscuous. Except for me and a couple of my guy friends. It is a cultural phenomenon for men to be promiscuous. Basically, if you don't have sex alot you are seen as uncool. Its stupid, I know. But no group is innocent.

If you don't like what goes on in gay parades, than don't watch. The news has a way of only showing the extremes of our festivities. I also don't like your insinuation that all gay people are kinksters. Your post reeks of homophobia and stupidity.

It is not fashionable to be gay. It is just safer to come out of the closet. Homosexuality and Incest are not connected and I resent you trying to compare the two. Also, I don't think you speak for all of the straight people.

QFT, and good points, just like what I was saying. Also, it shouldn't matter even if all gay men, or all LGBT people, were into BDSM (obvously, they're not), but, it shouldn't matter, it doesn't make us "perverts", "freaks" or anything. Also, it isn't "fashionable" to be gay, it's just safer, in certain areas, in Saudi Arabia and Iran, to be gay is, pretty much, a death sentance, yet, you still get gay guys, and lesbians, bisexuals, and Trans people, and they are definitely not doing it to be "fashionable" (surprisingly, the Iranian government is supportive of Trans people, and pay for their operations, they oppose gay guys and lesbians, though).


Ummm, maybe because Pagan people are actually allowed to form opinions on other faiths? Here is a snippet of light reading that might help to answer your question...

When Constantine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_I_%28emperor%29) became the sole Roman Emperor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Emperor) in 323, Christianity became legal by the Edict of Milan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edict_of_Milan). Although Constantine allowed public Pagan practices, specific Pagan temples were torn down upon his orders, while in other cases temple treasures were confiscated [9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_Paganism#cite_note-8) After the death of Constantine in 337, two of his sons, Constantius II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantius_II) and Constans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constans) took over the leadership of the empire. Constans, ruler of the western provinces, was, like his father, a Christian. Constans was killed in 350, and soon after his brother became the sole emperor of the entire empire three years later.
But it wasn't just the emperors who persecuted the Pagans. Lay Christians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laity) took advantage of these new anti Pagan laws by destroying and plundering the temples[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)]. Theologians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theologians) and prominent ecclesiastics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clergy) soon followed[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)]. One such example is St. Ambrose (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Ambrose), Bishop of Milan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milan). When Gratian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gratian) became Roman emperor in 375, Ambrose, who was one of his closest educators, persuaded him to further suppress Paganism. The emperor, on Ambrose's advice, confiscated the property of the Pagan temples; seized the properties of the Vestal Virgins and Pagan priests, and removed the statue of the Goddess of Victory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_%28mythology%29) from the Roman Senate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Senate)[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)].
When Gratian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gratian) delegated the government of the eastern half of the Roman Empire to Theodosius the Great (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodosius_the_Great) in 379, the situation became worse for the Pagans. Theodosius prohibited all forms of Pagan worship and allowed the temples to be robbed, plundered, and ruthlessly destroyed by monks and other enterprising Christians[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)].
In the year 416, under Theodosius II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodosius_II), a law was passed to bar Pagans from public employment[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)]. All this was done to coerce Pagans to convert to Christianity. Theodosius also persecuted Judaism, destroying a number of synagogues (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synagogue)[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)].
With the gradual Christianization of Europe the Christian views of marriage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_of_marriage) replaced more permissive, Pagan views. A process which was not free of confrontation; see: History of Christianity and homosexuality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Christianity_and_homosexuality).



Saxon Conversion

Main article: Saxon wars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saxon_wars)
In 782, Charlemagne allegedly had 4,500 Saxons beheaded at the Massacre of Verden (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_Verden)[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)]. Their crime was that they had continued to practice their indigenous Germanic Paganism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_Paganism) after converting, under duress, to Christianity. Alcuin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcuin) and other theologians at the court of Charlemagne opposed his treatment of the Saxons and insisted in peaceful and voluntary conversion.[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_Paganism#cite_note-10) Mainstraim history describes these events as religious warfare (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_war) rather than religious persecution.[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_Paganism#cite_note-11) Still, some Neopagan authors present them in support of a case for the religious persecution of Pagans.[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_Paganism#cite_note-12)

WIKIPEDIA




Maybe you should do some research.

There's a lot of bloodshed in pagan history too, and the ancient pagans weren't exactly LGBT-friendly either (like I've said before loads of times, in ancient Rome and Greece, they may have been ok with a man penetrating another male, but, as long, as he was the top, and that he still got married, had a wife, had kids, etc, they wouldn't have accepted us wanting to be with a boyfriend, kissing them in public, holding hands, same-sex adoption, same-sex marriage, etc.

[debnmike]

I like gay parades. They are so much fun! :rollingla

Yep--same with the gay clubs.

[LostSheep]

What did all that about the Emperor Charlemagne have to do with the topic in hand? What has something that some people calling themselves Christians did in 782 got to do with anything at all, let alone views of homosexuality?

[LostSheep]

Going back to the topic in hand, I just think that there's such a lot of compartmentalised thinking; you must either be one or the other, and there can't be any overlap. Christian or Pagan. Gay or straight. And heaven (or whatever one's view of the afterlife may be) forbid that there could be any overlap between any of them. I just think that for many people, probably many more than people might think, it's more like a venn diagram, where two or more of the circles intersect: take the sheep, for instance. Now some would probably say that I couldn't be a proper Christian, because (a) I don't take every part of the Bible unquestioningly (see above), and (b) I don't really have exactly a monotheistic view of God; probably more pantheistic; but then, because I have an interest in Christianity and I see Jesus as bringing a message worth paying attention to, and i don't see the Bible as something to shy away from but something that can still mean something as long as you put in in context, I couldn't be a Pagan either. Meanwhile, I'm not exclusively heterosexual, but nor am I exclusively gay. So I fall in the middle of all those intersecting circles, and I just get the feeling sometimes that people would sometimes find it much more convenient if no one did. And I find that sad, because I think it's those intersections that make things interesting.

Thank you.

[princeether]

What did all that about the Emperor Charlemagne have to do with the topic in hand? What has something that some people calling themselves Christians did in 782 got to do with anything at all, let alone views of homosexuality?

Maybe if you actually read the questions posted by Stormwt, you would see the significance.
and yeah it was slightly off topic, but is that forbidden?

[Darth Brooks]

Gay men are notoriously promiscuous. I know straights can be but it is not a cultural phenomenon. To straight people watching gays parade in San Francisco with sexual torture costumes, sex toys, bondage games etc makes straight people really sick to their stomachs. Lesbians in biker leather who like pain etc. I think you get the picture.

Well to be honest I don't really like looking at that stuff either, I'm a bit conservative when it comes to my own sexuality and I don't feel it necessary to surround myself with such things. But the truth is, it would bother me every bit as much if it was a bunch of straight people doing it. The fact that they are gay has nothing to do with it at all. When it comes to things like that, I am more than happy to just divert my attention to other things. If one doesn't want to see the San Francisco gay parades then one should simply stay away from them. Just because one doesn't like that sort of thing doesn't mean one has to try and spoil everyone else's fun, right?

And not only are you generalizing about gay people but you are also generalizing about us straights, since you automatically assume that any straight person watching a gay parade will be offended by it. More than likely, if they're sticking around to watch it then they probably don't have a problem with it.


The homosexual thing in the old testament was a violation of purity law. Sex with your sister or mother was also an abomination and everyone seems to accept that. NO one says "It's just part of my sexuality to sleep with my sister." I believe that the gay cultural phenomena is exactly that. It has become popular to call yourself gay. It is not now popular to practice incest but I think that will probably come in the future.That is a non-issue. If it ever becomes an issue, we can deal with it then. But since it is a non-issue, it is not relevant to the topic at hand. But in the mean time, I think most of us can agree, both gays and straights, that there IS a line that must never be crossed, and that line is children.


Straight people see all this as a direct insult to themselves. HERE! LOOK AT THIS! I watched the gay parade years ago in DC and it was a freak show! THAT is the insult.Guess you don't get to New Orleans much. Freak show parades are a time-honored tradition down there, it's just a fact of life. In fact, freak shows in general have never had much trouble drawing audiences throughout history. If people want to wear funny leather outfits and tie themselves up and torture each other, or whatever, it's fine with me as long as it's between consenting adults. And if Washington DC decides to let them do it during a parade, well fine, it can't be any worse than what one can see at Mardi Gras. And they have straight people who do freaky stuff there, too! I just don't see any point in wasting my energy being offended about it.

[Bartmanhomer]

How many Christians do you actually know, and how many of them actually agree with that statement?

All of them at my church about 60+ members! And all of the 60+ members seriously agree with that statement.

[ignescentphoenix]

All of them at my church about 60+ members! And all of the 60+ members seriously agree with that statement.


Yeah, Im sure.:weirdsmil

Im glad you vigorously interviewed each and everyone of them. Its amazing you found time to do that, being the coolest, smartest, and most gangstalicious member here on MW.

:hmmmmm:

Hmm...indeed.

[David19]

Going back to the topic in hand, I just think that there's such a lot of compartmentalised thinking; you must either be one or the other, and there can't be any overlap. Christian or Pagan. Gay or straight. And heaven (or whatever one's view of the afterlife may be) forbid that there could be any overlap between any of them. I just think that for many people, probably many more than people might think, it's more like a venn diagram, where two or more of the circles intersect: take the sheep, for instance. Now some would probably say that I couldn't be a proper Christian, because (a) I don't take every part of the Bible unquestioningly (see above), and (b) I don't really have exactly a monotheistic view of God; probably more pantheistic; but then, because I have an interest in Christianity and I see Jesus as bringing a message worth paying attention to, and i don't see the Bible as something to shy away from but something that can still mean something as long as you put in in context, I couldn't be a Pagan either. Meanwhile, I'm not exclusively heterosexual, but nor am I exclusively gay. So I fall in the middle of all those intersecting circles, and I just get the feeling sometimes that people would sometimes find it much more convenient if no one did. And I find that sad, because I think it's those intersections that make things interesting.

Thank you.

I don't think you should feel pressured to choose one label or the other, do what's right for you, be a Christian Pagan, or whatever path calls to you, if you're bi, you're bi. It doesn't matter what other people think, some people might prefer things to fit into boxes, but, some people, and things, don't fit into neat little categories. Just do what you want, call yourself what you want, and don't let other people bother you :) :hugz:.


Well to be honest I don't really like looking at that stuff either, I'm a bit conservative when it comes to my own sexuality and I don't feel it necessary to surround myself with such things. But the truth is, it would bother me every bit as much if it was a bunch of straight people doing it. The fact that they are gay has nothing to do with it at all. When it comes to things like that, I am more than happy to just divert my attention to other things. If one doesn't want to see the San Francisco gay parades then one should simply stay away from them. Just because one doesn't like that sort of thing doesn't mean one has to try and spoil everyone else's fun, right?

And not only are you generalizing about gay people but you are also generalizing about us straights, since you automatically assume that any straight person watching a gay parade will be offended by it. More than likely, if they're sticking around to watch it then they probably don't have a problem with it.

That is a non-issue. If it ever becomes an issue, we can deal with it then. But since it is a non-issue, it is not relevant to the topic at hand. But in the mean time, I think most of us can agree, both gays and straights, that there IS a line that must never be crossed, and that line is children.

Guess you don't get to New Orleans much. Freak show parades are a time-honored tradition down there, it's just a fact of life. In fact, freak shows in general have never had much trouble drawing audiences throughout history. If people want to wear funny leather outfits and tie themselves up and torture each other, or whatever, it's fine with me as long as it's between consenting adults. And if Washington DC decides to let them do it during a parade, well fine, it can't be any worse than what one can see at Mardi Gras. And they have straight people who do freaky stuff there, too! I just don't see any point in wasting my energy being offended about it.

QFT, and very great points, if someone doesn't like Pride, well, then, don't go, or, if someone doesn't like BDSM, don't watch the Fetish societies go past, or ignore them.


All of them at my church about 60+ members! And all of the 60+ members seriously agree with that statement.

Then, you must go to a very fundamentalist Church.

[Lunacie]

All of them at my church about 60+ members! And all of the 60+ members seriously agree with that statement.

I used to attend a small, closed-minded church like that. I was generally afraid to buck the trend and ask questions like: Why is gay sex a sin but eating shellfish is okay? People like to fit in somewhere, even when they find the fit somewhat uncomfortable. And the smaller the group the more you stand out when you ask questions like that.

I am a little surprised that this attitude is still so pervasive 20 years after I left the church, but I'd be even more surprised if all 60 of the folks who attend your church believe that gay sex is unquestionably a sin. I'll bet there are some who do question why some of the old laws are seen as a crime against God while others of the old laws are completely ignored.

[debnmike]

All of them at my church about 60+ members! And all of the 60+ members seriously agree with that statement.

Out of sheer curiosity, what denomination are you and do you agree with the "60+ members"?

Just curious.

[Infinite Grey]

All of them at my church about 60+ members! And all of the 60+ members seriously agree with that statement.

Appeal to majority fallacy!


An argumentum ad populum (Latin: "appeal to the people"), in logic, is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or all people believe it; it alleges that "If many believe so, it is so."

This type of argument is known by several names[1], including appeal to the masses, appeal to belief, appeal to the majority, appeal to the people, argument by consensus, authority of the many, and bandwagon fallacy, and in Latin by the names argumentum ad populum ("appeal to the people"), argumentum ad numerum ("appeal to the number"), and consensus gentium ("agreement of the clans"). It is also the basis of a number of social phenomena, including communal reinforcement and the bandwagon effect, the spreading of various religious and anti-religious beliefs, and of the Chinese proverb "three men make a tiger".

Explanation
The argumentum ad populum is a red herring and genetic fallacy. It appeals on probabilistic terms; given that 75% of a population answer A to a question where the answer is unknown, the argument states that it is reasonable to assume that the answer is indeed A. In cases where the answer can be known but is not known by a questioned entity, the appeal to majority provides a possible answer with a relatively high probability of correctness.

It is logically fallacious because the mere fact that a belief is widely held is not necessarily a guarantee that the belief is correct; if the belief of any individual can be wrong, then the belief held by multiple persons can also be wrong. If for instance, a logical proof that the answer is A attempted to make the argument that 75% of people polled think the answer is A, there is a 25% chance that the answer is not A. However small the percentage of those polled is distributed among any remaining answers, this chance by definition disproves any guarantee of the correctness of the majority. In addition, this would be true even if the answer given by those polled were unanimous, as the sample size may be insufficient, or some fact may be unknown to those polled that, if known, would result in a different distribution of answers.

This fallacy is similar in structure to certain other fallacies that involve a confusion between the justification of a belief and its widespread acceptance by a given group of people. When an argument uses the appeal to the beliefs of a group of supposed experts, it takes on the form of an appeal to authority; if the appeal is to the beliefs of a group of respected elders or the members of one's community over a long period of time, then it takes on the form of an appeal to tradition.

One who commits this fallacy may assume that individuals commonly analyze and edit their beliefs and behaviors. This is often not the case (see conformity).

The argumentum ad populum can be a valid argument in inductive logic; for example, a poll of a sizeable population may find that 90% prefer a certain brand of product over another. A cogent (strong) argument can then be made that the next person to be considered will also prefer that brand, and the poll is valid evidence of that claim. However, it is unsuitable as an argument for deductive reasoning as proof, for instance to say that the poll proves that the preferred brand is superior to the competition in its composition or that everyone prefers that brand to the other.

Evidence

* One could claim that smoking is a healthy pastime, since millions of people do it. However, knowing the dangers of smoking, we instead say that smoking is not a healthy pastime despite the fact that millions do it.
* One could claim Brad Pitt is the best-looking man in the world, because he is regularly voted such, although the sample he is part of (celebrities) is insufficient.

[Cloaked Raven]

Out of sheer curiosity, what denomination are you and do you agree with the "60+ members"?

Just curious.
That's what I was wondering...

[David19]

I used to attend a small, closed-minded church like that. I was generally afraid to buck the trend and ask questions like: Why is gay sex a sin but eating shellfish is okay? People like to fit in somewhere, even when they find the fit somewhat uncomfortable. And the smaller the group the more you stand out when you ask questions like that.

I am a little surprised that this attitude is still so pervasive 20 years after I left the church, but I'd be even more surprised if all 60 of the folks who attend your church believe that gay sex is unquestionably a sin. I'll bet there are some who do question why some of the old laws are seen as a crime against God while others of the old laws are completely ignored.

I'd also suspect that, not only do some of the 60 members question the old laws, but, some of them, probably, are LGBT themselves, and just are too afraid to come out.

[Carri]

I don’t get it. Why do such a large number of Christians (note: I am deliberately not saying ALL Christians) seem to be so bothered by something that actually has nothing to do with them, and doesn’t affect their lives in the slightest?

Using the bible to justify gay prejudice

People bang on about the verse in Leviticus that is most often translated as “Do not lie with a man as with a woman; it is a detestable sin” (or something along those lines.) Yet weirdly they mostly ignore most of the rest of the old testament, giving the argument that “When Jesus came, he abolished the values espoused in the Old Testament” (including the old ‘eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth’ stuff). So Christians feel free to eat shellfish, despite this verse:



www.godhatesshrimp.com (http://www.godhatesshrimp.com)

Christians also feel free to cut their hair and beards (forbidden in Leviticus) eat pork (forbidden as an ‘abomination’ in Leviticus) plant their field with two kinds of seed, or wear cloth woven with two types of material (yup, forbidden.) Confront a fundie Christian with this logic and they will laugh, and doubtless point out that “Oh, that old stuff about weaving cloth, it’s hardly relevant today, now is it?” THEN WHY IS THE SUPPOSED “HOMOSEXUAL VERSE” RELEVANT, WHEN EVERYTHING AROUND ABOUT HAS LONG BEEN OBLITERATED BY COMMON SENSE?

http://www.fallwell.com/selective%20quotation.html

There’s also the fact that the verse, while often translated as condemning gay sex, may in fact mean any number of things. Some Biblical scholars say that the Greek might as easily be translated as “Do not lie with another man IN the lyings of a woman”, ie, do not have sex with another man in a woman’s bed. Which puts a bit of a different spin on things.

As for the ‘sin of Sodom’ nonsense – apparently it says in Ezekiel that the sins of Sodom included: pride, greed, and an unwillingness to “help the needy.” But there’s nothing in there about homosexual sex!

http://www.iwgonline.org/docs/sodom.html


What are you so afraid of…your own sexuality?

Fundie Christians seem OBSESSED by gay sex! Of course we’re all familiar with Pastor Phelps and his message that ‘God hates Fags’. For someone who claims to be completely straight, Fred Phelps has certainly got a bee in his bonnet about homosexuality. I have seen documentaries where Shirley Phelps claims that their message is about ‘Hierarchies of sin’ and that homosexuality is the worst sin it is possible to commit. Um. Does it say that in the bible? Cause I’ve never heard of that verse.

I recently watched a documentary on fundie Christians here in Britain where one man was getting very worked up about society telling children that it is ‘ok to be gay’. His central concern was eloquently expressed thus:

“I don’t want my son being told it’s ok to get s*** on his d***!”

:wtf:

I thought that was a particularly immature statement…when the guy has sex with his wife, is he afraid of getting blood on his ****? Or is THAT ok? Also, to reduce the joy and pleasure of sex to some crude epithet like that just shows he is incapable of understanding love that is different to his way of loving. Which is pretty sad. And lastly…that’s what enemas are for!

I also recently watched an award-winning documentary called Jesus Camp, about the evangelical movement in the USA and how some churches are targeting kids to “take back America for Christ.” One of the preachers there was called Ted Haggard. While on camera he enjoined the cameraman to ‘repent’ and told the assembled crowds “We don’t even need to debate about homosexual behaviour; what we need to think about it is written in the bible.” Bare months after the documentary finished filming, Ted Haggard was deposed as the leader of the New Life church after admitting to patronising male prostitutes. So I suppose there is some truth in the theory that those who violently oppose homosexual relationships may have something to hide!

The sanctity of marriage…not.

The other thing that really bothers Christians is the possibility that gay and lesbian couples may be allowed to marry. Oh noes! This will mean the end of life as we know it! Ignorant and prejudiced people make statements along the lines of “one11one!! If the gays get married, then wut is to stop pplz marrying thur dogs n shit?” Totally insulting and facile.

Also, we breeders demand the SANCTITY of abusing our kids! The SANCTITY of domestic violence! The SANCTITY of bringing drugs, alcohol and weapons around our kids!

Of course not all heterosexual marriage is bad. But a great many are. I don’t understand how people can defend the institution of hetero marriage when frankly, we’ve made a right balls-up of it over the years. LGBT couples can’t possibly mess it up worse than we already have. So what’s the big deal?

And as for the concept that children of gay/lesbian couples will be bullied…sure they will. As were kids of single mothers in times past. As were mixed race kids in times past. But you know what? Society adjusted, grew up and moved on. In time the same-sex couple with kids will be just another type of family, and then it won’t be worth commenting on anymore, because it will be so commonplace. Interracial couples didn’t stop having kids. Single mums didn’t stop raising their babies themselves. Society has moved on now, and it will do so again.

Okay, I'm gonna admit that I haven't read the whole thread befor I posted so if this is a repeat then I appologize.

I am Christian AND I am not bothered by it. And your kinda right in your first paragraph, it has nothing to do with me. Now I may not be your most normal Christian but even as a bible thumper I was letting people have it for being mean to gay and lesbians. Okay, I will admit I didn't stick up for the bis because I was niave and didn't really know about ya all during that part of my life. Sorry. So while it has nothing to do with me it sort of does because this shaped who I am today, and how I feel about people and how I am proud of my beliefs and actions in my life. It solidified my own beliefs and no one could challenge me with any arguement that could sway me.

Jump 20 (maybe a couple more) years later and I will tell anyone who will listen that LGBT couples should be allowed to adopt children. As someone who has been inside more than a couple orphanages who the hell are they to say who should get a kid. I don't care if the kid will get picked on, who the hell doesn't?(A concern listed btw, not mine.) It's a family, love, home. They don't have it now. There are more than enough to go around... What's the arguement? I have argued this with thumpers, even ministers, even convinced my elderly mother who was die hard.

I think single parents should be allowed too.

There are kids without families and couples with parents inside of them just waiting to come out, they should be put together for the benifit of both.

And you know what, give me a gay couple who has a kid and guess what, now we have something in common. We have a reason to get out of an akward silence and talk. (I mean this in the sense of general people, not me personally) Opens doors and people get to find out that guess what we have more in common than we thought. And then I see a couple without a kid, not looking so scary anymore...

I'm sorry and I am now done with my rant. But I am still a Christian so I don't know why there are others who have a problem with it.

Now, let's just mix a little multiculturalism in there and I'm good.

[Meisopomenos]

Grew up in a Pentecostal-Holiness church, never intend to go back and since I'm gay... According to them, I'm going to Hell in a handbasket. So why bother?

Actually, I just view them as closed-minded individuals and just try to stay away from them. I will still be open enough to listen if they need someone to talk to, but I just leave my private life out of it since it isn't any of their business anyways.

[Twinkle]

See...we're talking about Christianity here as if it was one fluent entity...and it simply isn't.

There are many denominations within Christianity, and you'll find that most *Traditional* Christians view homosexuality as a sin. And indeed, within most denominations, it is....along with Paganism, Witchcraft, divination, and a number of other practices. Now...within some denominations there is no sin with being a homosexual...it's the act (sodomy) that makes it sinful. There are many priests that are *inactive* homosexuals, and that is fine for at least the RCC. The purpose sex is purely for procreation....and two men (or two women), cannot procreate...so you know...it's a sin. Of course, a number of other sex practices that do not end in procreation are also considered sinful, and therefore *perverse*, as well.

Those that read the Bible in a literal context would agree. Even those that find it allegorical find the specific teachings regarding Homosexuality in the Bible as quite clear.

There are Christian heretics that choose to ignore or redefine the traditional teachings of the Bible, and that is their right. Whether that makes them *Christian* or not is another matter altogether, and has been a subject of great debate for years.

[Dumunzi]

I would say that the translations and further translations of translations of Biblical text have seriously probably borked a lot of the Bible. In regards to homosexuality, I'd say some of that stuff is misunderstood to now.

For instance Genesis first words are mis translated, so my Understanding the Bible university professor tells me. o_O He said that the words actually say in the original Hebrew text, Elohim created the earth and skies. Not the Heaven and Earth, etc. Heck, people back then didn't believe it was a planet but a flat surface!!

Either way, not my scripture, not my problem, until they try to infringe on my rights. Then it's a political firefight till they are to tired to fight anymore.

[Louisvillian]

I think it is because it is defined as a sin in the bible.

Primary reason.

Precisely. I'm not saying it's a particularly tolerant or modern viewpoint, nor is it one that I agree with, but the Old Testament makes it clear, via the Leviticus passage, that homosexuality (along with certain foods) was forbidden.

The reason for that being in there, though, is part of what the Hebrew Bible was- a codex written to collect the cultural customs, myths, and histories of the Hebrew tribes. The context is key for understanding that; the Hebrews were a small tribe constantly on the verge of destruction, living in a region with poor crop yield and little arable land. Certain foods spoiled easily in the desert, other foods were in short supply due to lack of arable land, and a reduction in heterosexual behaviour potentially threatened such a small tribe's long-term survival.

Now, pretty quickly, the Hebrews found good settlements, and their population expanded, but the dietary and cultural laws were already in force and considered traditional. As Judaism became more fleshed out, those became entrenched, and carried over into Christianity, though the dietary laws are usually ignored because pork is awesome.

[David19]

Precisely. I'm not saying it's a particularly tolerant or modern viewpoint, nor is it one that I agree with, but the Old Testament makes it clear, via the Leviticus passage, that homosexuality (along with certain foods) was forbidden.

The reason for that being in there, though, is part of what the Hebrew Bible was- a codex written to collect the cultural customs, myths, and histories of the Hebrew tribes. The context is key for understanding that; the Hebrews were a small tribe constantly on the verge of destruction, living in a region with poor crop yield and little arable land. Certain foods spoiled easily in the desert, other foods were in short supply due to lack of arable land, and a reduction in heterosexual behaviour potentially threatened such a small tribe's long-term survival.

Now, pretty quickly, the Hebrews found good settlements, and their population expanded, but the dietary and cultural laws were already in force and considered traditional. As Judaism became more fleshed out, those became entrenched, and carried over into Christianity, though the dietary laws are usually ignored because pork is awesome.

QFT, exactly :thumbsup:, it's too bad other people don't realise that.

[ninurta2008]

Point well made, maybe that is why. seeing that everyone around them either tolerated gays because their gods made them (mesopotamia), or as long as they had a wife and kids (Greece) or just had gays (egypt). Yeah, it worked to make it so the jews populated all of canaan, though I don't agree with their method.

[Snapdragon]

Glancing at the title of this thread, it occurred to me that Xians are hardly unique in making "a big deal" about homosexuality. In fact, it appears to me that all the major religions--which is to say, the monotheisms--make a similar "deal" about gays. Why do you suppose that is? So far as I'm aware, this has not been true of pagan religions, though of course you can find prejudice and discrimination anywhere, on an individual basis.

It does seem to be pretty much a "mono" thing--as in monoculture, monotony, monotone, monomania...and monotheism.

[Bix]

Probably because most of the monotheistic religions had similar backgrounds.

[Snapdragon]

Probably because most of the monotheistic religions had similar backgrounds.

I wonder what that can possibly mean. Anything?

[ignescentphoenix]

I wonder what that can possibly mean. Anything?

Its simple.

More babies means more followers.

[David19]

Glancing at the title of this thread, it occurred to me that Xians are hardly unique in making "a big deal" about homosexuality. In fact, it appears to me that all the major religions--which is to say, the monotheisms--make a similar "deal" about gays. Why do you suppose that is? So far as I'm aware, this has not been true of pagan religions, though of course you can find prejudice and discrimination anywhere, on an individual basis.

It does seem to be pretty much a "mono" thing--as in monoculture, monotony, monotone, monomania...and monotheism.

That's not true, other cultures looked down upon us too, for example, in Greece and Rome, it might be alright for a male to have sex with a male of a "lower" status to him, as long as he was the top/active partner, but, he couldn't be the passive/bottom partner, also, you were still expected to get married and have kids, hetrosexual relationships were still seen as the norm, same-sex relationships were only justified if it was about sex and power relations.

So, it's not just a monotheistic thing.

[john.a]

As a person who is both very, very gay and yet devoutly, devoutly Catholic, much of what has been said on this thread really makes my heart ache.

First of, the OP has painted a very grim and quite inaccurate picture of modern-day Christianity and its approach to homosexuality. Many Christian churches are accepting and allow for same-sex unions as well as homosexual clergy. Many do not - and those that do not should in no way be grouped in with groups like Fred Phelps, the Christians on Jesus Camp and some hick from Britain who vulgarly and crudely puts it that he doesn't want $h!t on his penis. Many people I know don't at all compare homosexual marriage to bestiality and they don't write in computer l33t nor do they state their opinions crudely. So don't make it seem as if any Christian who opposes your viewpoints can only be stupid, crude, intolerant, moronic and uneducated, the way you make it seem.

Many, especially in my own faith tradition, are in accordance with the followings of the Church but they are in no way arrogant, close-minded and violently opposed to ho
mosexuality. It is, in fact, quite the opposite. They are calm, intelligent, firm and accept the teachings not on the basis of their own intolerance or bias but because their interpretation of human sexuality differs. It is a sobering, loving opposition that is genuinely concerned for institution of the family.

So let's get this straight and summarize it: most Christians do not care because they're lukewarm or because they're accepting. And most Christians that do care should not be painted to look violently, arrogantly and close-mindedly so. It's insulting.

Second, to write such a long, ranting post spewing many of the things that Christians, particularly, gay Christians have heard all our lives is insensitive: it assumes that we ourselves have not been asking ourselves these questions for quite awhile. And it completely belittles those of us, myself included, who have for quite sometime considered the option of life-long celibacy. These are painstaking deliberations. If you were genuinely curious, then so be it but your post was written deliberately to paint the stupidity of modern-day Christianity's opinion on homosexuality. Like what is the point of this post? It brings up a controversial issue not for the sake of learning but to post up a bunch of stuff we've all heard before.

You start off by asking how we, Christians, would care about something that has nothing to do with us assuming of course that no self-respecting gay could be Christian, right? You assume also that sexuality, something so intrinsic to the nature of mankind, has nothing to do with a religion who is very much concerned with the nature of humanity, its relationship to God and humanity's apotheosis. Sexuality is something that very much affects our lives and our society. As Christians, we must be deeply involved with humanity and society.

Then you ask us, exactly the way we've been asked thousands of times, about why we follow certain things in the Bible but ignore other parts. I mean, do you ask this question in honesty or are you just regurgitating what you've read somewhere? Did you actually open up the Bible, read it, and come across this phrase that was troubling to you? I mean the answer is obvious: the New Testament is pretty much the definitive testament for most Christians because it is directly related to the new covenant that applies to the entire ecclesia rather than just Israel. In the New Testament there is no longer mention of any interdiction against cutting hair and beards, planting field with two types of seed or wearing cloth that isn't purely one material. However, the interdiction against unacceptable sexual behaviours - and it goes on to enumerate them - still exists. So that is why we pick and chose from the Old Testament - because the New Testament picks and chooses.

In addition, you completely insults those of the orthodox Jewish faith who do still follow these kosher rules by saying that common sense has long-sense obliterated them. This is not the case.

Now in response to the Greek, as someone who has studied it a little more than the average Joe, most of the appendixes and dictionaries to which I have access are quite clear on the translations. Many of the linguistic arguments that try and interpret the scripture in a more "liberationist" perspective are just grasping at straws.

Finally, in response to your section about the sancity of marriage. The sanctity of marriage, just like the sanctity of any sacrament is not dependent on how it is treated by people. Yeah, many people abuse their kids and are violent towards their spouses but this is not a straight or gay or Christian problem. It is a human problem. The fact is that regardless of how people act within a marriage, it's the nature of what marriage is that makes it holy.

To Christians, marriage is something holy by nature and the emphasis is not on what we do but on what God has done. He has instituted marriage as holy. It has nothing to do with how "breeders" screw it up. Thus this argument is null: breeders have screwed up the isntitution so let's just let teh gayz have it. It's an argument that doesn't take into account any of the theological implications of what marriage is to a Christian.

It's also an argument that completely messes up the secular notion of marriage with the religious notion and it doesn't even explain how one can screw up and institution. It's like saying that, yanno, there are too many kids failing school so school as an institution has been screwed up. It's not what people do with institution, it's what the institution is made for that dictates it's nature.

Lastly, I'd like to say that this is an Abrahamic faiths forum. The way you paint the behaviour of Christians, is also sometimes the way in which many conservative Muslims and conservative Jews behave. And the quotes you took were from the Old Testament, pieces of scripture to which the Jews also adhere. Yet your post is completely against Christians: Christians this and Christians that. I perceive the original post, therefore, to have no purpose, other than to trash my faith.

It breaks my heart as someone who is devoutly Catholic and quite gay and as someone who's struggled with many of these issues. It breaks my heart to have them laid out to the whole world and to have them painted in such a crude, simplistic way - as if I am completely stupid and inane to even question myself and my homosexuality. As if my family, my friends and my priest have been insensitive to me and believe what they believe not because of some intellectual, sober affirmation of a theological point but because they just hate me. As if, DUH, I should've already made the right choice and do what I want to do with my sex. It breaks my heart.

I'm even scared to read the responses to your post.

EDIT I just read some of the responses and seriously, I expected better from this community.

[LostSheep]

I wonder what that can possibly mean. Anything?

I suppose because they all came from the same root, and so the Old testament was at the basis of their teachings, whether they acknowledged it or not.

[ignescentphoenix]

As a person who is both very, very gay and yet devoutly, devoutly Catholic, much of what has been said on this thread really makes my heart ache.

First of, the OP has painted a very grim and quite inaccurate picture of modern-day Christianity and its approach to homosexuality. Many Christian churches are accepting and allow for same-sex unions as well as homosexual clergy. Many do not - and those that do not should in no way be grouped in with groups like Fred Phelps, the Christians on Jesus Camp and some hick from Britain who vulgarly and crudely puts it that he doesn't want $h!t on his penis. Many people I know don't at all compare homosexual marriage to bestiality and they don't write in computer l33t nor do they state their opinions crudely. So don't make it seem as if any Christian who opposes your viewpoints can only be stupid, crude, intolerant, moronic and uneducated, the way you make it seem.

I think the OP was actually quite accurate. Maybe its because I live in the United States. Christian culture is very different here. Perhaps many churchs in Canada perform same-sex weddings, but that is not always the case in other countries. I noticed you said "Many" churches. Do you mean most? There are alot of christians here that compare homosexuality to bestiality and incest. Although, I think its pretty much just the fundamentalists and a hefty percentage of devout church-goers. That still adds up to a significant number.

I'll be honest with you. Im not a fan of any of the abrahamic faiths. Especially christianity and all its sects. This isn't path bashing, it is just my opinion. I find that whenever I encounter christian opposition to my lifestyle, it all boils down to religious principles. Also, I think you are exaggerating about the "offensive" comments. If you read the thread, you would know that there are offensive comments from both sides.



Many, especially in my own faith tradition, are in accordance with the followings of the Church but they are in no way arrogant, close-minded and violently opposed to ho
mosexuality. It is, in fact, quite the opposite. They are calm, intelligent, firm and accept the teachings not on the basis of their own intolerance or bias but because their interpretation of human sexuality differs. It is a sobering, loving opposition that is genuinely concerned for institution of the family.

Well, your faith tradition is not the norm around the world. From what you tell me, the pope may not approve of some of the tenets that you follow. Not that I care what he thinks. Its always nice to have free-thinking catholics though.

What you are saying is, some of your christian brethren oppose homosexuality, but not because of scripture? How sobering, how sobering indeed. I could care less if someone opposes my lifestyle for religious or secular reasons. If they stand in the way of my rights, look at me like Im evil, or try to belittle me; then they are going to get flattened by the steam-roller of truth. I could care less if they think that we are "dangerous" to family values. Their little homophobic flame will get snuffed out by the power of my reason and logic.




So let's get this straight and summarize it: most Christians do not care because they're lukewarm or because they're accepting. And most Christians that do care should not be painted to look violently, arrogantly and close-mindedly so. It's insulting.

Im sure most germans were "lukewarm" about the concentration camps. Im sure most americans were "lukewarm" about slavery too. The common element Im trying to show you is, inaction is almost as bad as opposing something. You don't voice your opinion, you don't care, you will let "others" take care of it.

Well, Im sorry if my opposition feels insulted. Gee, I wonder if they care how I feel, how I felt growing up, How so many of our beautiful brothers and sisters felt growing up. The number of my people that took thier own lives because of the hostile environment that this Judeo-christian society has birthed. Hell, I wasn't even raised in a religious household, and Im still jaded by it. Yet, you think you can call me arrogant? Im not doing anything except telling my story, fighting the opposition. Well Im sorry, John, people's feelings are going to get hurt. Change is usually painful.



Second, to write such a long, ranting post spewing many of the things that Christians, particularly, gay Christians have heard all our lives is insensitive: it assumes that we ourselves have not been asking ourselves these questions for quite awhile. And it completely belittles those of us, myself included, who have for quite sometime considered the option of life-long celibacy. These are painstaking deliberations. If you were genuinely curious, then so be it but your post was written deliberately to paint the stupidity of modern-day Christianity's opinion on homosexuality. Like what is the point of this post? It brings up a controversial issue not for the sake of learning but to post up a bunch of stuff we've all heard before.

You chose your religion. Not all christian families are as accepting as yours, nor are all communities. If you have asked yourself these questions, then our words are not for you. They are for the thousands of other lonely glbt christians who feel like they are damned. Im not going to dance around this. I'll just come out and say it. Modern-day Christianity's opinion of homosexuality is stupid. We need to remind people of this. Sure your sect is accepting, but I'll tell you what I tell my muslim friends. You need to reach out to your more radical members.

Im curious to know how you know your sect is so accepting?


You start off by asking how we, Christians, would care about something that has nothing to do with us assuming of course that no self-respecting gay could be Christian, right? You assume also that sexuality, something so intrinsic to the nature of mankind, has nothing to do with a religion who is very much concerned with the nature of humanity, its relationship to God and humanity's apotheosis. Sexuality is something that very much affects our lives and our society. As Christians, we must be deeply involved with humanity and society.

Ok, but how are you deeply involved in these issues when many christians(maybe most), oppose sex education, birth control, abortion, and homosexual adoptions? These are the issues that are effecting us today. I got to tell you, most christians here in the U.S. are not as free thinking as you. I have befriended a couple, but they are really few and far between.


Then you ask us, exactly the way we've been asked thousands of times, about why we follow certain things in the Bible but ignore other parts. I mean, do you ask this question in honesty or are you just regurgitating what you've read somewhere? Did you actually open up the Bible, read it, and come across this phrase that was troubling to you? I mean the answer is obvious: the New Testament is pretty much the definitive testament for most Christians because it is directly related to the new covenant that applies to the entire ecclesia rather than just Israel. In the New Testament there is no longer mention of any interdiction against cutting hair and beards, planting field with two types of seed or wearing cloth that isn't purely one material. However, the interdiction against unacceptable sexual behaviours - and it goes on to enumerate them - still exists. So that is why we pick and chose from the Old Testament - because the New Testament picks and chooses.

Thats what bugs me about the bible. How can you pick and choose what verses to follow? If you really think its god's word, you should follow it all. Then you guys say that the bible was written way back when and some parts are no longer relevent. How can this be when you guys say your god in unchanging? Wouldn't his word be unchanging to? Im not trying to be a dick, its just no one has been able to give me an answer. I invite any christians to answer me these questions because I am honestly curious.


In addition, you completely insults those of the orthodox Jewish faith who do still follow these kosher rules by saying that common sense has long-sense obliterated them. This is not the case.

I am 100% opposed to religious and secular male genital mutilation. So Im not even going to touch that one.



Finally, in response to your section about the sancity of marriage. The sanctity of marriage, just like the sanctity of any sacrament is not dependent on how it is treated by people. Yeah, many people abuse their kids and are violent towards their spouses but this is not a straight or gay or Christian problem. It is a human problem. The fact is that regardless of how people act within a marriage, it's the nature of what marriage is that makes it holy.


What about atheists like me? Marriage isn't necessarily a holy union.

(This may come as a shock to some of my fellow MW'rs, but after alot of introspection I had an epiphany. I am an atheist.)


To Christians, marriage is something holy by nature and the emphasis is not on what we do but on what God has done. He has instituted marriage as holy. It has nothing to do with how "breeders" screw it up. Thus this argument is null: breeders have screwed up the isntitution so let's just let teh gayz have it. It's an argument that doesn't take into account any of the theological implications of what marriage is to a Christian.

So what? We gays can't get married because it wouldn't be a "christian marriage". There are many americans who don't think Jesus died for our sins. We have muslims, jews, buddhists, pagans, discordians, atheists, etc. What other restrictions are we going to impose on these groups? Im sure they do not want the christian definition of marriage.


Lastly, I'd like to say that this is an Abrahamic faiths forum. The way you paint the behaviour of Christians, is also sometimes the way in which many conservative Muslims and conservative Jews behave. And the quotes you took were from the Old Testament, pieces of scripture to which the Jews also adhere. Yet your post is completely against Christians: Christians this and Christians that. I perceive the original post, therefore, to have no purpose, other than to trash my faith.

I assure you, I am not a fan of any abrahamic religion. Sure the mythology is colorful, interesting, and sometimes inspiring, Im just not a fan of dogma. I tried my hardest to get my view accross without sounding like a total ass.


It breaks my heart as someone who is devoutly Catholic and quite gay and as someone who's struggled with many of these issues. It breaks my heart to have them laid out to the whole world and to have them painted in such a crude, simplistic way - as if I am completely stupid and inane to even question myself and my homosexuality. As if my family, my friends and my priest have been insensitive to me and believe what they believe not because of some intellectual, sober affirmation of a theological point but because they just hate me. As if, DUH, I should've already made the right choice and do what I want to do with my sex. It breaks my heart.

I'm even scared to read the responses to your post.

EDIT I just read some of the responses and seriously, I expected better from this community.

No one here thinks your stupid. We may disagree with you on somethings, but everyone tries to be as respectful as they can.

[john.a]

I think the OP was actually quite accurate. Maybe its because I live in the United States. Christian culture is very different here. Perhaps many churchs in Canada perform same-sex weddings, but that is not always the case in other countries. I noticed you said "Many" churches. Do you mean most? There are alot of christians here that compare homosexuality to bestiality and incest. Although, I think its pretty much just the fundamentalists and a hefty percentage of devout church-goers. That still adds up to a significant number.

It may perhaps be a cultural difference, however there really isn't that big of a difference between Canada and most of your northern states. Maybe your Bible belt is radically different. At any rate:

ALLOWS AS MEMBERS:
Anglican, Canadian and American Reformed Churches, Christian Reformed, Church of the Nazarene, Eastern Orthodox, Episcopal,
Lutheran, Methodist, Metropolital Community Church, Morovian, United Reformed, Quakers, Roman Catholicism, Old Catholic, Reformed Catholic, Swedenborgian, Unification Church, Unitarian Universalist, United Church of Canada, United Church of Christ, Uniting Church in Australia, Unity School of Christianity, Waldensian

ORDAINS:
some Anglican, some Baptist, Episcopal, Metropolitan Community Church, some Quakers, Roman Catholic (special circumstances), Old Catholic, Reformed Catholic, some Swedenborgian, Unitarian Universalist, United Church of Canada, some United Church of Christ, Uniting Church in Australia, Unity School of Christianity, Waldensian

BLESSES UNIONS/MARRIES:
some Anglican, some Baptist, Episcopal, Metropolitan Community Church, some Presbyterian, some United Reformed Churches, some Quakers, Old Catholics, Reformed Catholics, some Swedenborgians, Unitarian Universalist, United Church of Canada, some United Church of Christ, Unity School of Christianity, some Waldensian

So no: I don't mean "most", I mean many. I don't have the statistics to show most but you haven't posted any either.


I find that whenever I encounter christian opposition to my lifestyle, it all boils down to religious principles.

What's your point? I mean, DUH, obviously. My objection was to the way our behaviour, as Christians, was painted. It's obvious many denominations are opposed to homosexual behaviour but it's a belief issue and nothing to fuss about. You can't control what people believe - only how they behave. I was objecting to the assumption that all of us Christians behave stupidly, arrogantly, etc. Yeah, we disagree with your "lifestyle" to use your word but we're not all as crude as that British guy nor are our reasons as simplistic and crude as his.


Also, I think you are exaggerating about the "offensive" comments. If you read the thread, you would know that there are offensive comments from both sides.

It's not an exaggeration because, really, that was the point of the whole thread. The OP brought something up that obviously the majority of people on MW would agree with in a forum where some of us don't agree with her. It was deliberately trashing my faith. I'm not on the Eastern Religions forum bashing the idea of reincarnation, am I? Nor is she in the Eastern Religions forum bashing the sexuality teachings of Eastern Religions. So it's offensive: none of you don't appear to have a problem specifically with people against homosexuality because it's boiling down to you all having a problem with Christianity.


Well, your faith tradition is not the norm around the world. From what you tell me, the pope may not approve of some of the tenets that you follow. Not that I care what he thinks. Its always nice to have free-thinking catholics though.

My faith comprises, according to the online CIA World Factbook run by the United States Government Central Intelligence Agency, Roman Catholicism comprises 16.99% of the whole world - about one sixth. My faith tradition may not be the norm but we are over one half of all total Christians. I don't know what you're saying about how the Pope may not approve of some of my tenets because I humbly submit to the Pope.


What you are saying is, some of your christian brethren oppose homosexuality, but not because of scripture? How sobering, how sobering indeed. I could care less if someone opposes my lifestyle for religious or secular reasons. If they stand in the way of my rights, look at me like Im evil, or try to belittle me; then they are going to get flattened by the steam-roller of truth. I could care less if they think that we are "dangerous" to family values. Their little homophobic flame will get snuffed out by the power of my reason and logic.

Read my posts properly. I never even mentioned Scripture. That shows how much you know about Catholicism. We're not really the sola scriptura types.

It is wrong for a Catholic to look at you like you're evil or belittle you. They have sinned and not you - and this, we freely admit. But it is, everyone's right and even duty to participate in political dialogue and in a democracy that means participating in such a way that you represent your own view point. You're supposed to be selfish in a democracy because you're representing yourself and your own viewpoints and perspectives. So, yes, we Catholics are allowed to participate politically. Your "steam-roller" and your supposed superior reasoning and logic can't control this: it's a political thing.


Im sure most germans were "lukewarm" about the concentration camps. Im sure most americans were "lukewarm" about slavery too. The common element Im trying to show you is, inaction is almost as bad as opposing something. You don't voice your opinion, you don't care, you will let "others" take care of it.

Wow - you're getting way out of control. I, again, repeat that I was objecting to how the OP was painting a picture about Christian behaviour - as if the few examples she gave were examples of all of Christendom. I said that her descriptions were inaccurate because most are lukewarm and really, most Christians aren't that involved and don't care about you and your personal life.

So I don't know why you bring up the Holocaust and slavery - I wasn't suggesting the idea that some Christians are lukewarm so they get to be excused. I was saying that MOST Christians are lukewarm and probably couldn't careless to even stop for a second to acknowledge you, much less bash you or say crude things about feces on a penis. Most Christians don't care - so it's wrong to paint a picture like we're out to get you.


Well, Im sorry if my opposition feels insulted. Gee, I wonder if they care how I feel, how I felt growing up, How so many of our beautiful brothers and sisters felt growing up. The number of my people that took thier own lives because of the hostile environment that this Judeo-christian society has birthed. Hell, I wasn't even raised in a religious household, and Im still jaded by it. Yet, you think you can call me arrogant? Im not doing anything except telling my story, fighting the opposition. Well Im sorry, John, people's feelings are going to get hurt. Change is usually painful.

I never called you arrogant. I said that Christians should not be painted to look arrogant because most of us don't care and many of us, when we do, won't act in such a way that you'd even think we oppose your lifestyle.

Like seriously - maybe in the Bible belt, homophobia is bad. But in most of Europe and up here, no one cares. "Judeo-Christian society" no longer exists in most of the world. And the world's hostility? It's some victimization fantasy. It's cool to be gay now and it's cool to support gay people and it's cool to have a gay best friend. Girls are going through has-bian phases in college for the fun of it and emo boys make out with each other because it's hawt and it turns girls on. Right? Right. So yeah, some people have it bad but most don't. Now, if you wanna talk about bitter and jaded I have every right to be bitter and jaded. I'm not gonna make this personal but you said it yourself: you weren't even raised in a Christian household. So don't be the boy/girl that screams homophobia.


You chose your religion. Not all christian families are as accepting as yours, nor are all communities. If you have asked yourself these questions, then our words are not for you. They are for the thousands of other lonely glbt christians who feel like they are damned. Im not going to dance around this. I'll just come out and say it. Modern-day Christianity's opinion of homosexuality is stupid. We need to remind people of this. Sure your sect is accepting, but I'll tell you what I tell my muslim friends. You need to reach out to your more radical members.

Your paragraph there doesn't even bother countering what I wrote. How do you know my family was accepting? Where do you get off on this assumption?

And, yeah, your words are for the "thousands" of other lonely GLBT Christians who "feel damned" but really it's just to tell them how Christianity is crap. It doesn't, at all, help those who want to keep their faith tradition. It's more of some pseudo-conversion to your own worldview as opposed to supporting them while helping them maintain their own world view.

AND, my sect is not "accepting." I am a Roman Catholic and the Roman Catholic Church is blatant: being homosexual is not a sin but engaging in homosexual behaviour is. Yeah, there are radical free-thinking Catholics and they're trying to reach out and stuff but me? Personally? I submit, as much as I intellectually and emotionally can, to the doctrine of my faith and to the urgings of my Pope.

The point I was making that you completely missed is that this post does not help. It was pointless. It's basic point was: Christianity's belief in homosexuality is crappy. And it's like... yeah. It is. I want to be loved and get jumped by my boyfriend as freely as I want to. But there are other matters, other ideas, other things that are just as relevant in my life - at least I feel so and so do many gay Christians. So OP wasn't for us lonely folk who feel damned. It's to tell us how stupid we are for following our religion. I didn't know that was accepted on these forums.


Im curious to know how you know your sect is so accepting?

It's not.


Ok, but how are you deeply involved in these issues when many christians(maybe most), oppose sex education, birth control, abortion, and homosexual adoptions? These are the issues that are effecting us today. I got to tell you, most christians here in the U.S. are not as free thinking as you. I have befriended a couple, but they are really few and far between.

Um. Do you know what "deeply involved" means? We are involved politically and on a grass-roots level because we oppose such things. The point I was countering was the OP's point; my paragraph isn't to be read without context. She or he explicitly asked why we care when it has nothing to do with us. My point was that it does have something to do with us. So your paragraph makes no sense.


Thats what bugs me about the bible. How can you pick and choose what verses to follow? If you really think its god's word, you should follow it all. Then you guys say that the bible was written way back when and some parts are no longer relevent. How can this be when you guys say your god in unchanging? Wouldn't his word be unchanging to? Im not trying to be a dick, its just no one has been able to give me an answer. I invite any christians to answer me these questions because I am honestly curious.

Again - WE don't pick and chose. The New Testament has already done so. And for Catholics, it's the inspired word - it's not what he dictated. It's the reaction that men had to God within the context to their times. It, indeed, is no longer relevant because some of the issues they had with nature and reality are no longer issues now. For Christians, early Jews didn't mix meat and dairy because in those days it could've led to bacterial contamination that could spread through the entire population and God certainly wouldn't want this. It's the reasons behind certain prohibitions that allow us to pick and chose. If the reason still applies to today then yes. If not, then we can throw it out - it was for a nomadic desert tribe and it was about how God related to them, not to us.


I am 100% opposed to religious and secular male genital mutilation. So Im not even going to touch that one.

Seriously? This is your best example of kosher. Anyway - my paragraph wasn't directed at you. It was directed at the OP who clearly went on and on and on about Christianity but didn't even mention Islam and Judaism. Good for you for 100% opposing us Abrahamic followers all equally.


What about atheists like me? Marriage isn't necessarily a holy union.

Again, you're responding to things I wrote that were directed to the OP. Her argument is that marriage isn't holy because we screwed it up. Well, since she made this claim within the framework of a religious perspective then I argumed within this framework. There's no point in arguing that it's holy in a non-religious perspective: this is obvious.


So what? We gays can't get married because it wouldn't be a "christian marriage". There are many americans who don't think Jesus died for our sins. We have muslims, jews, buddhists, pagans, discordians, atheists, etc. What other restrictions are we going to impose on these groups? Im sure they do not want the christian definition of marriage.

That's not the point. Again, the OP was trying to argue within the perspective of Christianity so I rebutted within our perspective. Obviously, secular people and non-Christian people can politically act in accordance with their own beliefs but I was defending our right to act within our own beliefs by explaining those very beliefs.


I assure you, I am not a fan of any abrahamic religion. Sure the mythology is colorful, interesting, and sometimes inspiring, Im just not a fan of dogma. I tried my hardest to get my view accross without sounding like a total ass.

It's nice to know you think it's colourful and interesting. That's not the point. The point is the OP did not make it clear that he or she wasn't a fan of any Abrahamic religion. She personally hounded Christianity and ignored homophobia in Islam, Judaism and yes - even certain Buddhist sects and Hindu sects frown on homosexuality.

[zombi]

It may perhaps be a cultural difference, however there really isn't that big of a difference between Canada and most of your northern states. Maybe your Bible belt is radically different.

Yes, our Bible belt is radically different. I can't tell you how many anti-homosexuality sermons/messages I have heard from Protestant pulpits by ministers, and that's not even talking about homosexual marriage issues. I don't have anything else to add, I am just saying, homosexuality is a huge and not-okay deal to a lot of christians in the american south. *shrug*

eta: I also want to stress that I don't really have a problem with christianity; I myself am a former Roman Catholic and much of it is still dear to me.

[Bix]

See I've never been to a church that spoke anything about homosexuality at all.

[Lunacie]

I never heard much about homosexuality from the pulpit in the churches I used to attend, but it was certainly there in the Sunday School lessons. Yes, many adults also attend Sunday School or Bible Study before church begins. My mother taught adult Sunday School for many years.

[David19]

I think the OP was actually quite accurate. Maybe its because I live in the United States. Christian culture is very different here. Perhaps many churchs in Canada perform same-sex weddings, but that is not always the case in other countries. I noticed you said "Many" churches. Do you mean most? There are alot of christians here that compare homosexuality to bestiality and incest. Although, I think its pretty much just the fundamentalists and a hefty percentage of devout church-goers. That still adds up to a significant number.

I'll be honest with you. Im not a fan of any of the abrahamic faiths. Especially christianity and all its sects. This isn't path bashing, it is just my opinion. I find that whenever I encounter christian opposition to my lifestyle, it all boils down to religious principles. Also, I think you are exaggerating about the "offensive" comments. If you read the thread, you would know that there are offensive comments from both sides.

But, you have to remember there are many paths that have problems with homosexuality and people like us, for example, even Gardner was homophobic and some of the early Wiccans were (even some modern ones too), the Dalai Lama said something like he doesn't personally approve of homosexuality, but, that doesn't stop me from wanting to pursue, or, at least, look more into Tibetan Buddhism. The thing is, we (LGBT people) have never had it easy, it's not due to Christianity, even in ancient pre-Christian times, we didn't, I've mentioned this before, but, while a lot of people hold Greece and Rome up as "shining examples" of gay-friendly societies, they really weren't, if you were the passive partner, you were looked down upon, they only approved of sex between males, like an upper-class male having sex with a slave or someone of a "lower" social status, they wouldn't, IMO, approve of us holding hands in the street, kissing in public, living together, and not marrying and having the whole hetrosexual thing (you know, wife, kids, etc). I would say Christianity, and Christians, were just a product of those times. Also, something interesting I read was that in ancient Israel, while they may have the whole "a man shall not lie with another man" thing, it was rarely, if ever, enforced, I can't remember which book I read this in, I'll have to look it up, but, I think that says a lot. I don't think we should blame Christianity, or Christians (or Jews) for the discrimination we suffer, anymore than black Americans should blame all white Americans for the discrimination they suffered. Yes, it's annoying when some fundamentalists quote Bible verses at you, saying why we're "sinful", "perverted" or "evil", but, just ignore them, or, even better, laugh at them, or pity them, 'cause, clearly they're still stuck in the past, where people didn't know anything about homosexuality, where people considered it too "different".


Well, Im sorry if my opposition feels insulted. Gee, I wonder if they care how I feel, how I felt growing up, How so many of our beautiful brothers and sisters felt growing up. The number of my people that took thier own lives because of the hostile environment that this Judeo-christian society has birthed. Hell, I wasn't even raised in a religious household, and Im still jaded by it. Yet, you think you can call me arrogant? Im not doing anything except telling my story, fighting the opposition. Well Im sorry, John, people's feelings are going to get hurt. Change is usually painful.

We should fight for change, and, yes, some people may find it hard to accept, 'cause, people normally don't like change, especially conservative people, but, we (the LGBT community) also need to change, for my dissertation, I wrote it on LGBT youth and the effects of homophobia, and what can be done to help them, and one of the things I found out, was young LGBT people don't just feel depressed 'cause of the homophobia they suffer from their parents, or at schools, or from their religious institution, but, also, from the LGBT community itself, they look at it, and all they see are people who don't really care about them, which I can understand, I'm a young LGBT person myself, and I've seen a lot of self-centeredness within our community, they might show sympathy, but, really they don't care about young LGBT people, and, some just seem to treat LGBT youth like sex objects (a lot of LGBT youth that end up on the streets, either 'cause they've ran away or been forced out, end up in prostitution being abused by other gay men, or "straight" men). So, you're right that things need to change, but, we, ourselves, need to fight to change our community, and make them care. It's easy to have an outside "enemy" to fight, but, we need to take a look at ourselves too, in order to truly help LGBT youth, and every LGBT person (also, the way elderly LGBT people get treated is quite shit too).





Thats what bugs me about the bible. How can you pick and choose what verses to follow? If you really think its god's word, you should follow it all. Then you guys say that the bible was written way back when and some parts are no longer relevent. How can this be when you guys say your god in unchanging? Wouldn't his word be unchanging to? Im not trying to be a dick, its just no one has been able to give me an answer. I invite any christians to answer me these questions because I am honestly curious.

It depends, not all Christians, or Jews, or even Muslims, believe the Bible is, literally, the Word of God, they believe it was inspired by God, but, written through human hands and minds (meaning human mistakes and flaws will enter into it too). Also, like I said, there's also the fact that in ancient Israel, the "killing a gay man" law was never enforced, so, I don't think the ancient Jews saw it as their duty to wipe out every gay man or lesbian. Some have stated those laws found in Leviticus were only meant to apply to the Priesthood, to maintain ritual purity (similar kinds of strict laws for the Priesthood are also found in ancient Egypt too, and other places).

Also, some Gnostic Christians may interpret the Bible as being inspired by different entities, the good parts may be inspired by a Good God, the bad parts by a lesser, ignorant or evil God.


I am 100% opposed to religious and secular male genital mutilation. So Im not even going to touch that one.

I don't want to get too OT, but, I don't see a problem with it, it's completely different to female genital mutilation (for many reasons, one being that girls can't enjoy sex after it's done, boys can and don't miss it).


What about atheists like me? Marriage isn't necessarily a holy union.

(This may come as a shock to some of my fellow MW'rs, but after alot of introspection I had an epiphany. I am an atheist.)

For myself, I'm undecided about marriage, I think if I met the right guy, I'd like to go through the ceremony, just 'cause it might feel right, feel like we're truly committed to each other.

BTW, congrats on your epiphany, hopefully, I'll have one about the path I'm supposed to be on.



I assure you, I am not a fan of any abrahamic religion. Sure the mythology is colorful, interesting, and sometimes inspiring, Im just not a fan of dogma. I tried my hardest to get my view accross without sounding like a total ass.

That can describe any religion, though, even Pagan ones.



It may perhaps be a cultural difference, however there really isn't that big of a difference between Canada and most of your northern states. Maybe your Bible belt is radically different. At any rate:

ALLOWS AS MEMBERS:
Anglican, Canadian and American Reformed Churches, Christian Reformed, Church of the Nazarene, Eastern Orthodox, Episcopal,
Lutheran, Methodist, Metropolital Community Church, Morovian, United Reformed, Quakers, Roman Catholicism, Old Catholic, Reformed Catholic, Swedenborgian, Unification Church, Unitarian Universalist, United Church of Canada, United Church of Christ, Uniting Church in Australia, Unity School of Christianity, Waldensian

ORDAINS:
some Anglican, some Baptist, Episcopal, Metropolitan Community Church, some Quakers, Roman Catholic (special circumstances), Old Catholic, Reformed Catholic, some Swedenborgian, Unitarian Universalist, United Church of Canada, some United Church of Christ, Uniting Church in Australia, Unity School of Christianity, Waldensian

BLESSES UNIONS/MARRIES:
some Anglican, some Baptist, Episcopal, Metropolitan Community Church, some Presbyterian, some United Reformed Churches, some Quakers, Old Catholics, Reformed Catholics, some Swedenborgians, Unitarian Universalist, United Church of Canada, some United Church of Christ, Unity School of Christianity, some Waldensian

So no: I don't mean "most", I mean many. I don't have the statistics to show most but you haven't posted any either.

Thanks for that list, I never knew there were so many, and, interestingly, I'm interested in learning more about Swedenborgian beliefs (I want to read Swedenborg's book 'Heaven and Hell', which you can find online).



It is wrong for a Catholic to look at you like you're evil or belittle you. They have sinned and not you - and this, we freely admit.

I didn't know that, that's quite interesting, I might remember it if someone does that to me.



Yes, our Bible belt is radically different. I can't tell you how many anti-homosexuality sermons/messages I have heard from Protestant pulpits by ministers, and that's not even talking about homosexual marriage issues. I don't have anything else to add, I am just saying, homosexuality is a huge and not-okay deal to a lot of christians in the american south. *shrug*

eta: I also want to stress that I don't really have a problem with christianity; I myself am a former Roman Catholic and much of it is still dear to me.

That's what I thought, it seems to be quite unique to American Christians, especially in the South (so much so, that they're the butt of jokes and comedians over here and Australia! :boing: ).


See I've never been to a church that spoke anything about homosexuality at all.

That's quite cool, my uncle (a Catholic and gay) goes to Church every sunday, so, I'm guessing they don't care either.

[zombi]

That's what I thought, it seems to be quite unique to American Christians, especially in the South (so much so, that they're the butt of jokes and comedians over here and Australia! :boing: ).

Yeah, it's the butt of jokes here in America as well -- it's really actually quite bizarre!

[Louisvillian]

It depends on where. In the cities, especially large ones like Atlanta and Houston, there is a much more vibrant and diverse community of people. As such, there are probably a lot more LGBT folks and much more tolerance and acceptance of them.
But in rural areas, you run into much less variety and it's there that you encounter more and more of the evangelical, fundamentalist Protestant types.

And it's not like that just in the American South. Many regions of North America demonstrate this kind of cultural and social divide between rural and urban areas.

[David19]

Yeah, it's the butt of jokes here in America as well -- it's really actually quite bizarre!

Maybe they're all secretly repressed!.


It depends on where. In the cities, especially large ones like Atlanta and Houston, there is a much more vibrant and diverse community of people. As such, there are probably a lot more LGBT folks and much more tolerance and acceptance of them.
But in rural areas, you run into much less variety and it's there that you encounter more and more of the evangelical, fundamentalist Protestant types.

And it's not like that just in the American South. Many regions of North America demonstrate this kind of cultural and social divide between rural and urban areas.

I didn't actually know Northern States could be just as bad as Southern ones, I always thought Northern States were a bit more liberal when it came to LGBT people.

[Lunacie]

Maybe they're all secretly repressed!.



I didn't actually know Northern States could be just as bad as Southern ones, I always thought Northern States were a bit more liberal when it came to LGBT people.

I agree that it's more of a divide between urban and rural areas in the U.S. The urban areas seem to be concentrated more along the coastal areas, with a few scattered cities of any size here and there. That means that most of the population probably lives in the cities, but there is a greater land mass that is rural and quite devoted to their repressed religious biases.

[David19]

I agree that it's more of a divide between urban and rural areas in the U.S. The urban areas seem to be concentrated more along the coastal areas, with a few scattered cities of any size here and there. That means that most of the population probably lives in the cities, but there is a greater land mass that is rural and quite devoted to their repressed religious biases.

Thanks for telling me, so, places like New York, LA, San Francisco, etc are more LGBT- friendly, in general, than places, like say, Alabama, Iowa, Ohio, etc (I'm only using those examples, as they're quite rural areas, aren't they?)?. I do know San Fran is like the gay capital of the U.S. (like Brighton over here).

[Louisvillian]

I didn't actually know Northern States could be just as bad as Southern ones, I always thought Northern States were a bit more liberal when it came to LGBT people.
The North just happens to be largely more urbanised. Urban places in the south and west also are very tolerant of LGBT people, even if the rural areas are not. But even then, not all rural places are anti-LGBT. It just depends.

An example that comes to mind of the urban-rural divide on LGBT issues is California and Prop 8. Though the urban districts largely voted against it, the majority of California is quite rural and supported the measure. The map of the county-level voting spread demonstrates this:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/df/CA2008Prop8.png/250px-CA2008Prop8.png

[Lunacie]

Thanks for telling me, so, places like New York, LA, San Francisco, etc are more LGBT- friendly, in general, than places, like say, Alabama, Iowa, Ohio, etc (I'm only using those examples, as they're quite rural areas, aren't they?)?. I do know San Fran is like the gay capital of the U.S. (like Brighton over here).

That's been my general impression. For what that's worth. Someone who has lived in more than just one state her whole life might have a different impression - but I'll be somewhat surprised.

[David19]

The North just happens to be largely more urbanised. Urban places in the south and west also are very tolerant of LGBT people, even if the rural areas are not. But even then, not all rural places are anti-LGBT. It just depends.

An example that comes to mind of the urban-rural divide on LGBT issues is California and Prop 8. Though the urban districts largely voted against it, the majority of California is quite rural and supported the measure. The map of the county-level voting spread demonstrates this:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/df/CA2008Prop8.png/250px-CA2008Prop8.png

Thanks for telling me, I was actually quite surprised that California overturned it, as I was always thought California was quite liberal, I guess, I was wrong.


That's been my general impression. For what that's worth. Someone who has lived in more than just one state her whole life might have a different impression - but I'll be somewhat surprised.

Glad to know I wasn't the only one :), and, you'll have a better knowledge than me, as I'm not from the U.S..

[ninurta2008]

Maybe its just the big cities that are the liberal ones? Or just the people in the cities seen more homosexuality, so they see less wrong with it. It just looks like a man and a woman, except its a man and a man or woman and a woman instead.

[Lunacie]

Maybe its just the big cities that are the liberal ones? Or just the people in the cities seen more homosexuality, so they see less wrong with it. It just looks like a man and a woman, except its a man and a man or woman and a woman instead.

That is probably at least part of it. I have a friend who used to live in Wichita (fairly large town), she has many tattoos and piercing and is a lesbian - not too strange in Wichita. But then she moved to a small town in Nebraska and she seems very strange to the folks who live there, much less accepted for who she is.

[ninurta2008]

People in small towns are by far less aware, or at least some of them, with the real world. Many of them, like my mom and gramma, think that in the old days when they were young there was less problems and everyone was a good samaritan. thats why there were no hispanic gangs then, but instead irish and german ones, they did the same crap.

Then when their towns grow big they see what always goes on in big cities and say <"what has the world come to? We've become eviler"

I am rambling again.