why do christians hate gays?

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
21

Here’s a view of the past: “If you allow the civil rights act, Niggers will fornicate with your children!”

As a matter of fact, I am not an advocate of species-ism. But I fail to see how an animal can enter into some kind of marriage. With gays it is a very real need, and a love just as human as anyone else, and often mixed with the desire to raise children especially with lesbian couples, and have a family. Anyhow, my solution is to repeal the damned tax breaks and other advantages the gays need so much. That stuff is unfair to single mothers too. Replace it with a law that gives tax breaks to any sort of people raising children in a stable home.

22

gayness is a disease. caused by something, maybe genetics, maybe environment, most likely both.

the humane thing to do with a person who has a disease is to cure them. obviously since we dont know what causes gay, we cant do that.

if a person with aids wants to live with another person with aids, fantastic. perhaps their children will have aids. if so, they should be forbidden from having children. if science discovers a way for them to have children that dont have aids, i would allow it.

we dont know about gay kids. the safe thing to do for the sake of the kids would be to ban gay adoption until this is worked out. im sure gays stuck in mississippi would give up their right to adopt as a gay couple in order to get married with tax breaks.

other than the kids, those people containing the aids within themselves are just great. and once gayness is identified as a disease, steps will be taken to identify and prevent the things that cause it. i believe the fact that gays would embrace this cure means that they would participate in enacting it, if in fact the surgeon general reccomends will and grace be taken off the air, and no gay family should adopt.

the fact that aids is identified as a disease means that you cant go on tv and talk about how its ok to get aids and to not worry about avoiding it. you say exactly why having aids is bad, how exactly you get it, and how exactly to avoid it.

someday, gayness will be recognized like this. it might be a matter of decades of genetic nanotechnology advancement. it might just be one of the many new gay sociologists who want to cure their disease. it will probably require both.

obviously we dont know, and i think that means we shouldnt be withholding rights until we do. what if it people with polio were thought of as lazy, and nobody ever cut them any slack. wouldnt they feel bad after they found out?

maybe its not a disease at all and god is tempting and punishing us in strange and awful ways or those crazy kids these days are just stupid and will ruin our society.

23

gayness is a disease? that’s just as bad as the right wing calling it a sin future man, complete and total bigotry.

24

do you know gay people? they say they are proud because they know that they are what they are probably for the rest of their life. that doesnt mean that they wish they were gay.

any that ive known, except for an observably extra lesbiany lesbian, do wish that they were normal, but physically are not attracted to the right ones.

even the ones that are happy with their gayness, their body is made to make them love gayness. all they have ever experienced is loving gayness. most of us here are proud of our straightness because its what our bodies have been chemically programmed to tell us is great.

there is a decision made somewhere, whether it be in the replication of your parents DNA or years later during your development, something changes what your body thinks.

you can either be straight or you can be gay at that point. one will serve natures clear purpose perfectly, the other clearly will not produce children, which i believe to be significant evidence to say that gay is not natures way.

the fact that i believe gayness is a disease is certainly not like saying blacks are inferior. if black people were all sterile then yeah i would say that some part of their body is not working properly. wouldnt you?

25

What!

How can gayness be a disease? Its a biological anomaly. Certain studies have linked gayness to a gene that causes increased sexual behavior in women, thus causing the gene to be evolutionarily beneficial! Even when there is an element of social conditioning involved, gayness is no more of a disease than any other practice that might discourage you from reproducing… numerous practices.

Certain very special boys do not have enough hormones to turn their voice low. They are ‘castrati’ in the music world, and they are very rare, their voice very beautiful, special musical pieces written for them. Now that we have stopped with the practice of just chopping boy’s balls off to create them. Is this a ‘disease’? No, because it really does nothing to hurt the guy or make his life worse. He might find his ‘disease’ to be a great source of enjoyment.

The argument that gays don’t reproduce is so laughable. The only other potential negative effect of being gay is facing scorn, ridicule from people who think its a disease or a sin or whatnot.

26

I agree with this 100%.

Me, and apparently Future Man. As we both said, we would be uncomfortable and extremely unhappy in a society which promoted that sort of behavior- it’s disgusting.

   It's nice that other people keep making my points for me.  You say that Christianity is more repulsive than bestiality, then try to convince me that this isn't about causing a radical change in American society. The right hand doesn't know what the left hand is typing, eh? Besides, what does the fact that you're into 'permitting stuff' instead of 'banning stuff' say at all about which side is correct?

No, I don’t think ‘they’ should ban anything because ‘I’ don’t like it. I think ‘they’ should ban something if ‘they’ don’t like it. ‘They’ being the majority of the community, of course.

27

Theres a difference between saying that the majority "should’ ban something and saying that it “can” ban something. The majority could repeal all the amendments of the constitution if it wanted, or add new ones, that force us all to be Christian on pain of death. Would you like that? If not then why?

28

Of course you can- i.e., forbidding people from peeing on the sidewalk.

At times, we do. Forbidding people from marrying dogs (even if they REALLY REALLY want to) or from having sex with their sisters could all be taken as examples of this. If we are unable to see eye-to-eye on an issue like beastiality, then I can only give you the short answer- Yes.
Maybe a thread about societal ethics in general, with the specific issues that provoke emotional responses taken out of it, would be interesting.

Yes, and my point is that "The guy who wants to ban stuff is wrong" isn't even the beginning of an argument.  Legalizing a bunch of things, and banning a bunch of things are both measures that can have a huge impact on a society, and both can be good or bad for that society, depending on the particulars. 

Depends on what you mean by 'discriminate'.  You don't have the right to beat the crap of out black people, or burn their houses down. You do have the right to vote on measures that you think will make life harder for black people, if you want. 
 But I don't think that's the question you really wanted to ask, though. Are you asking if a [i]society[/i] mainly finds black people detestable, should they be able to vote to deny rights to black people?
Also, when you say 'right', are you referring to the rights the American Government affords somebody, or are you talking about something else?

Very good point. To word what I mean precisely, I’ll say “The majority should be allowed to ban something”, which is not to say that any decision the majority makes is automatically the morally correct choice.

I wouldn't like that, because I don't think adults should be forced to accept any particular religion, especially on the pain of death. I'd vote against it, and protest it, and I don't know what all I'd do if it looked like things were going that way. 
Again, I have a feeling that you're intending to ask me something more than this. Are you asking if such a thing is morally right? I would say no. Are you asking me if the American system of Government makes it possible for such a thing to happen? I would say yes.  Still, I sense that neither of these questions are the heart of what it is you're asking me.
29

First, scythekain, my quotes were meant for Future Man who asked for Bible quotes to support the point, so he could educate us sans hatred.

Second, haven’t had shellfish for a while, but I have. I was raised to believe the dietary laws were part of the Old Law. Moral laws should still be valid to consider what is just or unjust, as they were just once.

Cordially,
my real name

30

There is one critical difference between homosexual behavior and pedophilia or beastiality.

In homosexual activity between consenting adults there’s no victim.

Nonconsenting homosexual sex, like beastiality, pedophilia, and nonconsensual heterosexual sex, all involve one party being a victim.

And as we know, no victim, no crime, right?

31

I think that the “Christian” side would say “no” – that’s why sodomy is called a “crime against nature”. Both are acting against natural law, both are victims, they just don’t realise it – they will never be truely happy doing what they are doing, and we want a happy community. :slight_smile:
(“Vee have oueh vays of making you happy!”) :evilfun:

I’m losing the hope of convincing anyone – it’s become enough to try to make one side clear to another. At any rate, let me jinx this conversation by saying that the principles everyone holds seem so diverse that we may never come to a resolution! :unamused:

32

Small correction: anything that does not harm anyone other than the participants. A free society does not needlessly restrict the rights and activities of its ctizens. Who on earth am I to tell another human being what he cannot do?

I am in good company. Can’t have all those heliocentrists running around free to tell people the Earth ain’t the center of the universe, those people might get their feelings hurt. The lifestyle someone chooses is little business of anyone other than the participants.

Apparently not. It is unfortunate that some of those who enjoy the rights of American citizenship are unwilling to extend those benefits to all American citizens.

33 
 Well, this particular free society outlaws all sorts of things that don't hurt anybody but the participants, like drugs, bestiality, suicide, etc.  Maybe you disagree with those and maybe you don't, but that's the precedent.  So you can't very well say to believe otherwise is against the countries founding principals, when the country has never ever been the way you describe.

If only that were the case, and yet here we are all talking about it, and it wasn’t the conservatives who raised the issue.

Which rights don’t some American citizens have, that others do?

34 
 Well, this particular free society outlaws all sorts of things that don't hurt anybody but the participants, like drugs, bestiality, suicide, etc.  Maybe you disagree with those and maybe you don't, but that's the precedent.  So you can't very well say to believe otherwise is against the countries founding principals, when the country has never ever been the way you describe.

If only that were the case, and yet here we are all talking about it, and it wasn’t the conservatives who raised the issue.

Which rights don’t some American citizens have, that others do?

35

It isn’t a crime against nature.

Happiness can’t be defined by faith. If it could there wouldn’t be such a need for religion. After all religion is what people go to when they can’t find happiness and are looking for a substitute.

Now, the reason we have these discussions. It isn’t about me convincing you or vice versa. It’s about someone wanting information, searching, and finding, our discussion. It’s for them.

That’s why so many of my points I resort to anecdotal evidence to support logic. The stories help people to relate easier and better.

Like with your statement about sodomy being unnatural. Yet we can look at the natural world and see not only sodomy but homosexual behaviors everywhere.

36

" …nothing is more experimental and broad-minded than Mother Nature. When you look at the Creation you clearly see that the Creator’s plan is to create diversity at all levels of reality, and to evolve that diversity to ever higher levels of sophistication – whether it’s forming galaxies from hydrogen gas, or evolving life on Earth. Moreover, just about any strategy furthering those blossomings is acceptable.

Among plants, sometimes flowers possess both male and female sex organs, sometimes they are unisexual and on different plants, sometimes unisexual and on the same plants, sometimes flowers are designed so they can’t self-pollinate, other times they have to pollinate themselves, and some plants skip the sex scene altogether by reproducing vegetatively.
Among animals we find everything from the male seahorse who carries the eggs, hatches them and takes care of the young, to the “polyandrous” Spotted Sandpiper whose females may lay up to four nests in a season, each equipped with a different male incubating the eggs. Of course the common earthworm is both male and female, and some snails sometimes mate with themselves, producing offspring.

The higher up the evolutionary scale you go, the kinkier it all gets. Among communities of mice and other mammals, when population density reaches a certain high level where diseases and famine threaten, not only does homosexual behavior appear but also parents begin killing their own offspring. It’s always the case that the Creator chooses the welfare of the community over that of the individual. If you’d like to review online notes of a series of university lectures dealing with parent-offspring conflict, including infanticide and the effects of high population densities on higher mammals…

If you have access to a science library or can use a search engine artfully, references to technical, academic papers detailing homosexual behaviors in a wide variety of primates, from langurs to orangutans to pit-tailed macaques can be accessed at androphile.org/preview/Libra … r20.24.htm

Among human populations, homosexuality occurs at a certain rate in all populations. Thus homosexuality is natural and inevitable. Data suggests that homosexuality may be at least partly genetically determined. A semi-technical paper at the University of Texas with the title “Biological Correlates of being Gay - Biological Determinism?” is available at utexas.edu/courses/bio301d/T … /Text.html

In short, it’s simply wrong to say that homosexual behavior is never natural. "
From: backyardnature.net/j/o/homosex.htm

Shalom
Bob

37

i stomp on natures face every single step i take and it doesnt seem to care. but i only really need to say that if nature’s natural gayness wasnt just brought up.

you say gay people wont be happy doing what they are doing. what would make them happy? coming to grips with what they really are? what they really are being of course, completely straight normal people hiding behind a facade of crazy sexual fetishes? :confused:

you think gay people decide to be gay? do you have evidence for thinking that? is it the bible? do you know one single gay person?

38

maybe gayness is gods answer to all the orphans who dont get adopted

that makes a lot more sense than him inflicting it upon his herd and then damning them for succumbing to it

39

No, it hasn’t yet. There is some question in my mind as to whether living up to such lofty founding principles is an attainable goal. This means we must have a constant process of self-inquiry and legislative alteration to get closer and closer with time. I do in fact disagree with laws against drugs and suicide; so do the 9th and 10th Amendments of the Constitution. So does the Declaration of Independence. The fact that we do not live up to these founding principles should inform us that, in fact, this is not yet a free society. If we wish to live in a free society, it is incumbent upon us to stop our short-sighted and counterproductive resistance to new ideas and paradigms.

On a different note, laws against drugs are a 20th-century phenomenon. Opium and marijuana control laws were passed as racist measures against people of asian and african descent, respectively, without any kind of legitimate argument for their necessity. Nobody in the 19th century saw fit to limit anyone’s behavior in this area, and “laudanum” was widely available to anyone who wanted it.

?

What have we been discussing the entire time?

A straight American has the right to marry whatever mentally-competent adult s/he pleases, and to adopt children with that person if found fit to do so. A gay American does not.

40

wroughtnharv: I think we were discussing natural law, not religion…And you have some unfortunate opinions on the latter.

Well, this is very interesting. Is this a form of social Darwinism that the writer is advocating?

But we are not sandpipers, but rational men. Might we ask what is the best way for us to procreate – and if we’re religious ask which way God would have us procreate?

So is the writer advocating infantcide along with homosexuality?

Why, as humans, can we not control ourselves instead of falling into these “natural” correctives to fight overcrowding?

I would call this “philosophically interesting”.