Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 11
ali smack

why is homophobia commonplace?

421 posts in this topic

Why aren't they in the same neighbourhood? It's still a form of predjudice against a group of people. It's still treating another group as inferior. The only difference to me is that is seems more excusable.

I am hoping that a similar thing will happen now with christians, that the change will happen on this issue, just like it did on other things.

I think the problem is that one church may preach that gay people should be stoned. Preaching violence against another group of people was, last I checked, wrong. Yet if it's violence against gay people? It's magically fine. I don't know why. I don't understand why people are ok with violence being preached towards gay people or why I should accept it. You know why I don't? Because those people that hear that message will be encouraged by it, encouraged to be violent against any gay person they see (at worst, at best treat them as inferior).

My problem is that those clergy that do condemn did, often do so in fearful or hateful terms. In any other circumstances comparing someone to a pedophila would be cause for condemnation, but it a member of the clergy does it (and many do) its ok because it's 'preaching god's will'. I think there is a line an I think many members of the clergy are willing to cross it because they know they have religious protection to do so.

Now from where I'm sitting, comparing gay people to pedophiles is hateful. I don't care what your religious beliefs are, the comparison is the same to me. The comparison is still wrong.

You know what else the problem is? That people in the church are told these comparison and they go into the world and believe them. They treat any gay person they meet with fear and hatred, because they think they might molest their children or smething based on what those clergy say. As long as the church isn't called on it's behaviour (like any other organisation) then people will still leave the church and treart gay people negatively which will include denying them the rights to those things you say gay people should have.

I think the attitude that religious groups foster against gay people is a huge problem and I don't see why it should be protected. God's will should not be a magic get out clause.

If I said 'I think it's god's will that black people should be stoned' is that not racist? If I said 'I think it's god's will that women are inferior' is that not sexist? If I said 'I think its god's will that all jews should be killed' is that not anti-semetic?

God's will does not act as get out for these things, nor does it change those statements from being anti-semetic/rascist/sexist simply by it's presence. Nor does it matter how sincerely held I believe those views to be. Why, then, does a view that would otherwise be considered homophobic, become ok because of the presence of god's will in the belief? Why does the sincerity of the belief matter nd make it ok? It wouldn't for those other things, would it?

Like I said, religious groups need to be called out on these actions and beliefs, not shielded.

That's not to say religions can't preach it's a sin (although I'd rather they didn't) it's just that, well. You don't see them comparing people that lie or have sex outisde marriage to pedophiles, or calling for them to be stoned do you?

When and where did I say that preaching violence was okay? I want a specific quote. In any event, churches have a right to teach what they want on this subject. You don't have to agree with it. You can tell them what you think of their beliefs, and they can tell you what they think of your beliefs. It's all fine and dandy if no violence is involved. That's how it's done in the USA with our First Amendment. Freedom of speech goes both ways, as it should. It's none of your or the State's business what they preach. It's nobody's business what you do in your personal life. I'm fine with gay people having civil rights on par with straight people, but I'm not fine with control freaks trying to control churches' free speech. I'm also not fine with the ridiculous comparisons of this issue to the struggles of Black people in the past.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

When and where did I say that preaching violence was okay? I want a specific quote. In any event, churches have a right to teach what they want on this subject. You don't have to agree with it. You can tell them what you think of their beliefs, and they can tell you what they think of your beliefs. It's all fine and dandy if no violence is involved. That's how it's done in the USA with our First Amendment. Freedom of speech goes both ways, as it should. It's none of your or the State's business what they preach. It's nobody's business what you do in your personal life. I'm fine with gay people having civil rights on par with straight people, but I'm not fine with control freaks trying to control churches' free speech. I'm also not fine with the ridiculous comparisons of this issue to the struggles of Black people in the past.

So you're ok if churches preach want they want, if if that includes preaching that 'gay people should be stoned'. (Something mentioned in your last post). That, is preaching violence and encouraging it. And why should the line only be crossed when it becomes violence? What about all those churches that preach that gay peple shouldn't have the same rights as straight people and such rights should be opposed? I guess that's all 'fine and dandy' is it?

Well I'm not fine with the church using 'free speech' to encourage violence and discrimination against another group. Like I pointed out, there really is absolutely no need for it. If there was, why aren't the churches calling for people that divorce, lie, have sex before marriage or don't believe to have less rights and be treated so badly? After all, their religious text calls those things 'sinful' and all sins are suppoed to be the same right? Yet no they have some sort of strange liscence to take this one too far unquestioningly, despite it being barely mentioned mentioned in the source material.

The comparison is made for two reasons. Reason 1, this is an issue about violence and discrimination against a minority. Reason 2, this is about a minority gaining civil rights. So it's not that ridiculous a comparison. Or is it just because it's not a clear cut thing? After all race is an obviously born trait, is it becomes homosexuality isn't as obviou as the colour of your skin from birth? Alright then, how about the comparison to left handed people, or, better, interracial couples.

You now what I find rather telling though? You've comment on the 'ridiculous comparison' of homophobia to rascism at least three times now. But not once have you made a single comment about the far more ridiculous comparison that churches make comparin gay people with pedophiles. Why is that?

Edited by shadowhive

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you're ok if churches preach want they want, if if that includes preaching that 'gay people should be stoned'. (Something mentioned in your last post). That, is preaching violence and encouraging it. And why should the line only be crossed when it becomes violence? What about all those churches that preach that gay peple shouldn't have the same rights as straight people and such rights should be opposed? I guess that's all 'fine and dandy' is it?

Well I'm not fine with the church using 'free speech' to encourage violence and discrimination against another group. Like I pointed out, there really is absolutely no need for it. If there was, why aren't the churches calling for people that divorce, lie, have sex before marriage or don't believe to have less rights and be treated so badly? After all, their religious text calls those things 'sinful' and all sins are suppoed to be the same right? Yet no they have some sort of strange liscence to take this one too far unquestioningly, despite it being barely mentioned mentioned in the source material.

The comparison is made for two reasons. Reason 1, this is an issue about violence and discrimination against a minority. Reason 2, this is about a minority gaining civil rights. So it's not that ridiculous a comparison. Or is it just because it's not a clear cut thing? After all race is an obviously born trait, is it becomes homosexuality isn't as obviou as the colour of your skin from birth? Alright then, how about the comparison to left handed people, or, better, interracial couples.

You now what I find rather telling though? You've comment on the 'ridiculous comparison' of homophobia to rascism at least three times now. But not once have you made a single comment about the far more ridiculous comparison that churches make comparin gay people with pedophiles. Why is that?

Churches have the right to preach what they wish, as long as it doesn't break the law, under the US Constitution. Ministers can criticize gay rights if they choose to do so. They can officiate at gay union ceremonies if they choose to do so. We rightly don't live under speech codes enforced by thought police, and, yes, I'm fine and dandy with that.

You're also generalizing with your assertion that ministers wink and nod at sins not associated with homosexuality (if I correctly understood your point). Some churches excommunicate divorcees. Some of them even do that to members who commit adultery, fornication, etc. As for political activism, they're involved in all kinds of lifestyle issues, not just gay rights.

I still don't buy your comparisons to gender or race. The Church doesn't control the State, and they can't pass laws that affect gay people. There were real laws on the books that kept certain groups from voting, going to certain schools, congregating at certain places, etc. Your argument should be with the government.

Since you brought it up, I certainly don't link homosexuality with bestiality or pedophilia just as I don't link fundamentalists with the Ku Klux Klan. I'm not even sure why you felt it necessary to construct that straw man. Anyway, you don't have to put words in my mouth now. I just say what I think so there's no need to jump to conclusions with unfounded assumptions.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Organized religion dogmas can't explain why people are born gay/homosexual as much they're unable to describe the causes of disabilities, deformities and other visible differences in people. God always has a plan and homosexuality is a special plan I take it...because God don't do mistakes. With more education on the subject, Detective Mystery, you'll see the bigger picture of the causes of homosexuality can't be helped in individuals who are homosexual.

Comparisons of the struggles of gay rights with civil rights of minorities and women are relevant: back in the 1960's, you had some people falsely believed in inferiority of mentioned groups and didn't respect the rights of people struggled with oppression and discrimination at the time was fervent and widespread. Today, LGBT people are encountering a similar pattern, and states refusing to recognize same-sex marriage pinpoints governments aren't accepting of LGBT constitutents' concerns and matters. Those states unwilling to grant same-sex marriage rights should be ashamed and they failed in their obligation to serve their state populations, based on their sexual orientation, the right to marry equally like straight people.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Churches have the right to preach what they wish, as long as it doesn't break the law, under the US Constitution. Ministers can criticize gay rights if they choose to do so. They can officiate at gay union ceremonies if they choose to do so. We rightly don't live under speech codes enforced by thought police, and, yes, I'm fine and dandy with that.

You're also generalizing with your assertion that ministers wink and nod at sins not associated with homosexuality (if I correctly understood your point). Some churches excommunicate divorcees. Some of them even do that to members who commit adultery, fornication, etc. As for political activism, they're involved in all kinds of lifestyle issues, not just gay rights.

I still don't buy your comparisons to gender or race. The Church doesn't control the State, and they can't pass laws that affect gay people. There were real laws on the books that kept certain groups from voting, going to certain schools, congregating at certain places, etc. Your argument should be with the government.

Since you brought it up, I certainly don't link homosexuality with bestiality or pedophilia just as I don't link fundamentalists with the Ku Klux Klan. I'm not even sure why you felt it necessary to construct that straw man. Anyway, you don't have to put words in my mouth now. I just say what I think so there's no need to jump to conclusions with unfounded assumptions.

I think there does need to be limits and the fact that churches get away with it never sits well with me.

I didn't say they 'wink and nod' but they certainly have a stronger attitude against homosexuality than most of the sins. Sure, some do act like in (equally backward) manners to those that you mention, but for the most prt, homosexuality is singled out as being worse (bar the things that actually break laws). Religious groups in America have tax exempt status, which should be removed the moment they get involved with political activism. Freedom of religion also includes freedom from religion and the moment any religion gets involved in politics it crosses the line.

The comparisons to gender and race are simple. I thought I made it clear but apparently not. Women fought for equal civil rights. Black people fought for equal civil rights. Gay people are fighting for equal civil rights. Not the thing present in all three: they're all fighting for equal civil rights. Are you saying there's no comparison there?

The church had it's hand keeping the status quo. For example, when interracial couples fought to gain marriage rights who was against it? The church. And it made a simple civil rights fight so much harder because religion got dragged into it. Now whenever gay people fight for civil rights religion gets draged into it and the thoughts of religious groups get better thought of even if they're baseless.

Gy rights should be an open and shut civil rights issue. So why does religion seemingly have to be taken in consideration for it?

I made the comment because about three times (four now) you commented on the racism/homophobia comparison, but ignored the homosexuality/pedophiia one. So yes, I found it strange how you ignored it repreatedly, but made your distaste about civil rights comparions as plain as the nose on your face.

Edited by shadowhive

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We part company there. I will fight long and hard against any group that tries to censor what words can be spoken in church. That includes speech with which I don't agree. You just want to force people to agree with your version of the world. I've seen where that can lead in Canadian and European churches where pastors are punished for telling the truth as they see it. Well, that kind of authoritarianism is not welcome in my country. Activists, who seek the destruction of the First Amendment, are misguided at best. You ignored all of my comments in favor of civil rights because I don't agree with violating Christians' civil rights when they choose to obey their conscience, and that's all that needs to be said to show where you really want to take this.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If two people love each other, regardless of sex, race, age, religion, etc., etc...what business is it of anyone else's? People need to worry about themselves. Quit turning mole hills into a mountains. How would "straight" people feel if they were told who they could and couldn't marry? Two brown-eyed people can't marry because they have the 'same' eye color. Homophobia is a made up word...created by an egotistical control freak. I have no problem with the lgbt community. They're just people.

I may be completely off topic...but I didn't have the attention span to read all 18 pages lol.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We part company there. I will fight long and hard against any group that tries to censor what words can be spoken in church. That includes speech with which I don't agree. You just want to force people to agree with your version of the world. I've seen where that can lead in Canadian and European churches where pastors are punished for telling the truth as they see it. Well, that kind of authoritarianism is not welcome in my country. Activists, who seek the destruction of the First Amendment, are misguided at best. You ignored all of my comments in favor of civil rights because I don't agree with violating Christians' civil rights when they choose to obey their conscience, and that's all that needs to be said to show where you really want to take this.

The difference between you and me is that you think free speech shouldn't come with any form of responsibility whatsoever. When churches are used to encourage disrimination against ANY group that crosses the line and, I'm sorry, but churches have shown that they will wilfully cross that lie repeatedly when it comes to gay people. I don't believe that sort of behaviour should be encouragedd, I don't believe that churches should be able to get away with it scot free.

No, it's not about getting them to aree with my version of thhe world, it's getting them to deal with this little thing called the reality of the world. I don't see why gettin churches to deal with reality is considered to be the worst thing ever.

The problem is (something that you don't seem to be able to get your hed aroud) is that christian's 'conscience' is often used as their excuse to violate other people's rights and get away with it. It always seems that the 'conscience' of religious people seems to far outweigh the realities of the world. That's why you have Westboro hiding behind the first amendment to protest funerals and you lot are too spineless to actual label it as wrong even when it's obvious that it is.

I just don't think treating another group as inferior should be given an ok if the reason is religious based.

It all makes me thankful I'm not American.

If two people love each other, regardless of sex, race, age, religion, etc., etc...what business is it of anyone else's? People need to worry about themselves. Quit turning mole hills into a mountains. How would "straight" people feel if they were told who they could and couldn't marry? Two brown-eyed people can't marry because they have the 'same' eye color. Homophobia is a made up word...created by an egotistical control freak. I have no problem with the lgbt community. They're just people.

I may be completely off topic...but I didn't have the attention span to read all 18 pages lol.

That's pretty much what it boils down too yeah. I just wish people would see it as that obvious but sadly religion gets in the way.

Edited by shadowhive
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's pretty much what it boils down too yeah. I just wish people would see it as that obvious but sadly religion gets in the way.

I agree. I could go off on a tangent about religion. However, that would take us way off topic. I will say, I was raised in a pretty religious family. I listened to what they said, yet remained a free-thinker. So many people are influenced so easily. They have no spine.

Plus, if "God" was so against homosexuality, wouldn't he strike all the "sinners" down? People preach of their God amd claim he makes all the final decisions, yet, they feel the need to judge. There's a lot of flaws. I'm not claiming to be perfect, but I'm also not trying to justify who somebody can and can't love.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The difference between you and me is that you think free speech shouldn't come with any form of responsibility whatsoever. When churches are used to encourage disrimination against ANY group that crosses the line and, I'm sorry, but churches have shown that they will wilfully cross that lie repeatedly when it comes to gay people. I don't believe that sort of behaviour should be encouragedd, I don't believe that churches should be able to get away with it scot free.

No, it's not about getting them to aree with my version of thhe world, it's getting them to deal with this little thing called the reality of the world. I don't see why gettin churches to deal with reality is considered to be the worst thing ever.

The problem is (something that you don't seem to be able to get your hed aroud) is that christian's 'conscience' is often used as their excuse to violate other people's rights and get away with it. It always seems that the 'conscience' of religious people seems to far outweigh the realities of the world. That's why you have Westboro hiding behind the first amendment to protest funerals and you lot are too spineless to actual label it as wrong even when it's obvious that it is.

I just don't think treating another group as inferior should be given an ok if the reason is religious based.

It all makes me thankful I'm not American.

I'm thankful that you're not an American too. As far as reality is concerned, preach that sermon to yourself. You don't know what you're talking about when it comes to our laws and our life. For example, most folks here, regardless of their religion, can't stand the Westboro Cult. It has next to no defenders or supporters. Its critics range from Southern Baptists to Hell's Angels. They're universally detested. They're an infinitesimal part of our religious scene, and they don't represent 99.8% of us.

Here's where we truly differ. I believe in freedom of speech and worship within the law. You don't. That's all there is to it. Many of us left your country so that we wouldn't be jailed or killed for our beliefs, so most of us don't care for would-be censors. "Offensive" speech still is protected speech. A crazy racist at a Nation of Islam temple may preach that the Mother Ship will return to zap "White devils". He has the right to say that, even though it might cater to bigots in his cult. I would never try to ban or censor such speech, even if it insults me. Along the same lines, mainstream conservative Christian churches have the same right to condemn gay relationships. We can't be selective when it comes to deciding what speech should be protected. You repeatedly ignored the fact that I said that gay Americans should have the same rights as straight Americans. I just don't want to violate one group's rights while defending another group's rights. I try to be consistent as a libertarian. BTW, polygamists can be fined or jailed here if they marry, so I'm sure that you support their rights too. If not, you're a "polygaphobe".

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm thankful that you're not an American too. As far as reality is concerned, preach that sermon to yourself. You don't know what you're talking about when it comes to our laws and our life. For example, most folks here, regardless of their religion, can't stand the Westboro Cult. It has next to no defenders or supporters. Its critics range from Southern Baptists to Hell's Angels. They're universally detested. They're an infinitesimal part of our religious scene, and they don't represent 99.8% of us.

Here's where we truly differ. I believe in freedom of speech and worship within the law. You don't. That's all there is to it. Many of us left your country so that we wouldn't be jailed or killed for our beliefs, so most of us don't care for would-be censors. "Offensive" speech still is protected speech. A crazy racist at a Nation of Islam temple may preach that the Mother Ship will return to zap "White devils". He has the right to say that, even though it might cater to bigots in his cult. I would never try to ban or censor such speech, even if it insults me. Along the same lines, mainstream conservative Christian churches have the same right to condemn gay relationships. We can't be selective when it comes to deciding what speech should be protected. You repeatedly ignored the fact that I said that gay Americans should have the same rights as straight Americans. I just don't want to violate one group's rights while defending another group's rights. I try to be consistent as a libertarian. BTW, polygamists can be fined or jailed here if they marry, so I'm sure that you support their rights too. If not, you're a "polygaphobe".

Yes, most people can't stand westboro, but they use that freedom of speech to defend protesting funerals and, worse, win every time. If folks are so against them, you'd think they'd be putting laws in place to actualy stop them but no.

No. Where we differ is what 'within the law' actually means. Where we differ is also not because the speech is offensive. No. My big problem is that you have these churches and what are they doing? They are preaching that one group is inferior. And what happens? The bigots in the group (and sometimes even the ones that aren't) take that speech to heart and go out into the world. Whenever they encounter people belonging to that group they treat them as inferior. Whenever that group tries to gain rights, they make it their duty to stop them. And why? It all goes back to the churches and the preacher.

So many gay people have been harmed first hand by such teachings (and in the past, other groups as well). They have been harmed physically, psychologically, spiritually, mentally. But none of that matters, because all it is to you is 'offensive speech'. That's very easy for you to say, but that's because you've never been tormented close to death because a moron's religion has told them to.

I don't 'ignore' the fact you say gay Americans should have the same rights as straight ones. I simply state that for those gay Americans to gain their rights, the religious position on the subject should be ignored entirely. But is it? No, because religious groups like to get nice and load about this issue (and only, it seems, this issue). You'd think from the way they were acting that being against same sex relationships was on the same level as jesus' divinity.

And yes, I am for polygamists rights too (among other things). I always find it odd why people thing it's such a terrible thing (and why same sex relationships seem to trigger the urge to discuss it).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree. I could go off on a tangent about religion. However, that would take us way off topic. I will say, I was raised in a pretty religious family. I listened to what they said, yet remained a free-thinker. So many people are influenced so easily. They have no spine.

Plus, if "God" was so against homosexuality, wouldn't he strike all the "sinners" down? People preach of their God amd claim he makes all the final decisions, yet, they feel the need to judge. There's a lot of flaws. I'm not claiming to be perfect, but I'm also not trying to justify who somebody can and can't love.

It is a shame that religion is allowed to get it's claws into people liek that. It's irrational really. I'm glad you've remained a free thinker, not everyone does.

Homosexuality is mentioned so little in the bible (and even then it can be taken to have another meaning most of the time) that you have to wonder if 'god' cares at all about it. I was lead to believe that helping others was a more important thing to god, yet it seems christians forget that so easily. It disgusts me the billions christian groups have put into fighting gay rights when it could have gone to a much more beneficial use.

It's all crazy really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are legal limits on free speech, and one of them is that if you slander someone they can sue you. As I understand it slander need only be malicious. Truth is not even an absolute defense.

There is also the concept of hate speech and the right of society to control it.

Where do these things and freedom of religion intersect? If freedom of religion always to get priority? Is what is said on the pulpit never subject to legal restraint? The pulpit is exempt from taxes so long as it stays out of commerce and politics. What is the role of that concept?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a shame that religion is allowed to get it's claws into people liek that. It's irrational really. I'm glad you've remained a free thinker, not everyone does.

Homosexuality is mentioned so little in the bible (and even then it can be taken to have another meaning most of the time) that you have to wonder if 'god' cares at all about it. I was lead to believe that helping others was a more important thing to god, yet it seems christians forget that so easily. It disgusts me the billions christian groups have put into fighting gay rights when it could have gone to a much more beneficial use.

It's all crazy really.

What would you have our government do? Should they tell all pastors, priests, rabbis, etc. to never read scriptures or sermons that might offend gay people or impact gay rights? That intolerance goes both ways, and there may come a time when the State tells the Church to censor beliefs that you support. I'll take my chances with freedom of speech. I don't want to live in a country where police arrest clergy for preaching ideas that aren't PC. This has happened in Canadian and varied European churches. No thanks. I'll take our First Amendment, and that goes for religious cults that claim that Detective Mystery is the Antichrist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What would you have our government do? Should they tell all pastors, priests, rabbis, etc. to never read scriptures or sermons that might offend gay people or impact gay rights? That intolerance goes both ways, and there may come a time when the State tells the Church to censor beliefs that you support. I'll take my chances with freedom of speech. I don't want to live in a country where police arrest clergy for preaching ideas that aren't PC. This has happened in Canadian and varied European churches. No thanks. I'll take our First Amendment, and that goes for religious cults that claim that Detective Mystery is the Antichrist.

I've said before what I'd prefer. I'll say it here for clarity.

Homosexuality is listed as a sin by these beliefs. Personally I hate that, I think that's a twisted belief to hold. However, that's not what I've got against the church. You see, the bible lists many other things as a sin and all sins are meant to be the same level. Another sin is sex before marriage. Now these two are meant to be the same 'level' but you look at churches. They call compare gay people to pedophiles, but not such cmparion is made against those that have sex before marriage. Churches campaign for gay cures, to keep gay people from having equal rights under the law. Tell me, do they do anything remotely similar for sex before marriage? The answer is no.

Now they can prach against the other sins and do it in even language. The trouble here is they don't use such language for gay people. They seem to like portaying them as if they're monsters and that leads to violence and discrimination, something that doesn''t seem to occur for any of the other sins (again, although they are meant to be the same).

Ideally, I'd want hmosexuality being a sin remved entirely. But I'll settle for it treated in the same manner they treat the rest.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've said before what I'd prefer. I'll say it here for clarity.

Homosexuality is listed as a sin by these beliefs. Personally I hate that, I think that's a twisted belief to hold. However, that's not what I've got against the church. You see, the bible lists many other things as a sin and all sins are meant to be the same level. Another sin is sex before marriage. Now these two are meant to be the same 'level' but you look at churches. They call compare gay people to pedophiles, but not such cmparion is made against those that have sex before marriage. Churches campaign for gay cures, to keep gay people from having equal rights under the law. Tell me, do they do anything remotely similar for sex before marriage? The answer is no.

Now they can prach against the other sins and do it in even language. The trouble here is they don't use such language for gay people. They seem to like portaying them as if they're monsters and that leads to violence and discrimination, something that doesn''t seem to occur for any of the other sins (again, although they are meant to be the same).

Ideally, I'd want hmosexuality being a sin remved entirely. But I'll settle for it treated in the same manner they treat the rest.

That's a huge generalization on your part. You're doing what you accuse churches and clergy of doing. As you know, not all denominations preach the same things. There are vast variations on what they teach. Some ministers do what you say. Yes, I agree that it's wrong to make it seem like adultery and fornication are okay by comparison. Not all houses of worship do that, though. Still, I support the rights of those that do. They have a right to preach and teach what they want within our laws. Do you think that their rights should be denied? I'm curious (but not in a sexual way).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a huge generalization on your part. You're doing what you accuse churches and clergy of doing. As you know, not all denominations preach the same things. There are vast variations on what they teach. Some ministers do what you say. Yes, I agree that it's wrong to make it seem like adultery and fornication are okay by comparison. Not all houses of worship do that, though. Still, I support the rights of those that do. They have a right to preach and teach what they want within our laws. Do you think that their rights should be denied? I'm curious (but not in a sexual way).

Ah, I didn't say all churches do it. Sadly, enough do that it is a serious problem, to the point where it has to be actually dealt with seriously.

I have tried to make it clear what I think. I have said it, time and time again. It's simple. To me, there is a line. Now what many churches are doing, quite openly, is encouraging vilence and discrimination against a group of people. Should there 'rights' to encourage that be taken away? Absolutely, because it could mean saving lives and reducing suffering. To me, thats a no brainer. Like I've said that applies to any group, not just gay people. Churches have, in the past, been hotbed of encouraging discrimination against pretty much every group of people (even other denominations) and it seems absurd that they still get away with it.

Now I'll ask you something, related to the example you gave here:

I'll take our First Amendment, and that goes for religious cults that claim that Detective Mystery is the Antichrist.

Ok, so here you say you'd be ok with cults calling you an antichrist. Now first off that to me sounds absurd (both anyone calling you it and you being ok with it) but Ill go with it for a second.

So I assume by what you say you'd be alright with said cult calling you the antichrist in a passing manner. What I'm curious about is that at what point does it become 'not ok' to you for them to say that you're the antichrist. Now let's say the cult takes the next step up, comparing you to murderers, rapists etc. Would that be ok? How about if they said 'you're the antichrist and it's our duty to stop you' and they go about doing it anyway they deem necessary. Does it only become 'not ok' when they cross the line into criminal behaviour ie kidnapping/killing? And even then, is it only the people involved directly and not the cult leader who started it all?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If memory serves, there is actually very little mention of homosexuality in the Bible, and then always in terms subject to various interpretations. You would think, if it were such a sin, that Jesus at least would have given a sermon about it.

I've wondered at times about Jesus and the "beloved Apostle" John. Then there is the relationship between David and somebody (I forget the name -- you can tell I've gotten my Christianity second-hand). Such things are suggestive.

The Apostle Paul strikes me as a closet homosexual with serious problems about women, something we don't see in the Jesus story at all.

No, Paul stole Christianity from Jesus way back, if you look at the Bible you will find that quotes attributed to Jesus are very few, if memory serves the Bible only mentions some four hundred words to him and most all those are in the first four books of the New Testament. Practically the rest of that was written by Paul, who was the biggest prosecutor of Christians before he was miraculously transformed by God himself on the road to Damascus. Personally, it should be called the religion of Paul rather than "Christianity" after Christ. Then too, when you look at Paul and compare him to Jesus, you discover that were Paul alive today he'd most likely be the leader of some cult. The man would accurately be described as a zealot and zealots aren't really known for being "inclusive". My own personal belief is Paul didn't change anything on the road to Damascus except his tactics in order to fornicate with this fledgling cult. Making so strict and hard as to make it die on the vine so to speak. If you read what Jesus is supposed to have taught, then turn around and read what Paul has written you hear two different things.

Then too, I always thought it odd that our Lord and Savior never bothered to actually write down his words by means of setting pen to paper and yet Paul and the other Apostles wrote abundantly later on in their ministries. However, the guy I really wanted to hear from apparently couldn't be bothered to do that, so you have to wonder if we really got what he was actually teaching or not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What we have from Paul (not all of what is attributed to him is really Pauline) is considerably earler than the words we have attributed to Jesus. Indeed, Paul only knows Jesus as a sortof mythyical being who lived on Earth once and was betrayed and died and resurrected and is in Heaven, soon (Paul thought in his lifetime) to return. The story of Jesus' ministry on earth seems to have developed elsewhere and after Paul.

The way I (and a lot of scholars) read this is that Jesus was first an invention of Greeks, probably in Asia minor since the earliest churches are all there, modeled after classical mystery religions but adopting the Jewish Messiah prophesied in Isaiah. At this point Paul. Then a generation or so later the Jesus story of the figure preaching Palestine, and the production of the Gospels.

All this is so contrary to the way Christians have it that they are astonished, but if one reads the NT with an open mind and without all the presuppositions, it seems obvious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that homosexuality is a malfunction. The very basic instincts of a male and female of any species is to procreate is it not? If that instinct is obscured or altered in any way it is a malfunction. Wether hormonal or chemical in nature the urge to mate with the same sex is completely un natural in any species. I feel that there is an elephant in the room that nobody wants to talk about in today's society and people are frightened to be labelled homophobic and smeared as right wing for ever daring mention the possibilities never mind researching them.

What I can never get my head around is that people say that it is simply a preference. I have never seen a preference come with so many common symptoms. I'd say that 95% of gay males I have ever met all present these symptoms, the feminine swivel of the hips whilst walking, the over elaborate hand gestures a floppy wrists, the softly spoken words with an emphasis on the sssssss, the attention grabbing mannerisms and overall just the feminization of a male.

I don't understand how simply preferring having sex with the same sex could make somebody display different physiological traits. Same goes for the female homosexuals, a huge majority tend to display male traits.

I'm not trying to say that homosexuals should be diagnosed and treated but it should be recognized that it is some form of physiological or biological disorder. I really don't think that it is psychological, I genuinely believe that they feel how they feel but the question is, what is causing it?

After all the human being isn't operating how nature intended it to.

This is completely incorrect. These mannerism are picked up on as a cultural trait for gay men, they are not inherent. Nor are they feminine, I don't know any women who act like that, and there are plenty of gay men that do not display them.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is completely incorrect. These mannerism are picked up on as a cultural trait for gay men, they are not inherent. Nor are they feminine, I don't know any women who act like that, and there are plenty of gay men that do not display them.

I'm not sure that's right. In Vietnam you see effeminate men much as you do in the States, and this is a different culture, one where homoerotic behavior is pretty much the norm until one gets married (or at least was -- the barriers to pre-marital sex have largely disappeared in the cities and with it the homoerotic stuff).

Most homosexual men are not effeminate, but the fact is some are. At least in some cases the two go together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I have gathered being gay is not a choice in most cases, nor have I seen any evidence of it being a genetic or early childhood or prenatal agdrogen related. The only evidence for early childhood psychology I have seen is that gay men above the statistical norm tend to have brothers, but this says nothing about gay women. I think we are dealing with and discussing a multifauceted human condition pretty much like any other.

Being "homophobic" or harboring negative attitudes to words a group of people seems to be inherently self centered.

I am one of those that find the prospect of to guys kissing undesirable while the prospect of two beautiful women kissing fascinating. But I am attracted to women, I suppose it would be opposite for a gay man. I think the important thing is the live and let live rule. I may not like watching gay guys kiss, but I will be the first to stand up even fight for their right to do so... But that comes with limits aswell. I do not appreciate the flaunting of sexuality in public or parades and an attempt to influence other peoples beliefs based on ones own from either camp. Please mind your own business and leave other people to their own lives choices and beliefs. It's not really that hard. I understand why gay people fight as they do, I also understand why the right feels like they are attacked. I say just drop it and worry about yourself. You will be much happier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure that's right. In Vietnam you see effeminate men much as you do in the States, and this is a different culture, one where homoerotic behavior is pretty much the norm until one gets married (or at least was -- the barriers to pre-marital sex have largely disappeared in the cities and with it the homoerotic stuff).

Most homosexual men are not effeminate, but the fact is some are. At least in some cases the two go together.

Right!! There is no corolation here. Some are effeminate some are not. It's obviously something they picked up somewhere not some psychological abnormality.

I actually asked a gay man about it one time. he said that as he became to accept he was gay and come out, he started to spend more time in the gay culture and picking up on the mannerism. It was a straight forward conversation. Some people are just like that. My wife spent two weeks in Canada and to my shock came back with a slight Canadian accent. Physical manerisms are really just a part of communication. It's just a body language accent. My brother in law is not gay, but has a gay older brother. The poor guy unbeknown to him has some "gay" mannerisms. No one has the heart to tell him. But I have been asked if he is gay or not. He is not.

Edited by Seeker79

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"why is homophobia commonplace?"

Because the big man in the sky said its evil, duh! :whistle:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"why is homophobia commonplace?"

Because the big man in the sky said its evil, duh! :whistle:

Now there is the real elephant in the room. Nice job. 🐘

Edited by Seeker79

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 11

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.