why do christians hate gays?

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
41

Hi My Real Name,

thank you first of all that you noticed I had posted something.

I am quite surprised at these remarks from you, but then again, the whole discussion is very heated.

I actually quoted what the author had to say:

It is a ‘natural’ assumption amongst extremists that sex is for conception of life and that it should only serve that purpose. But the question I found answered by implication was that if that were so, it wouldn’t be so enjoyable. He goes on to say (perhaps a little ironical):

"Why would the Creator create this state of affairs among humans? I don’t know, but my own experience with human gays is that, on the average, they are more sensitive, insightful and caring than the rest of us, so maybe that’s enough of an answer right there.

With regard to the morality of it all, I would say that at this time when so many young people desperately need love and care, and so many gay couples want to provide stable family structures for providing that love and care, the Bush doctrine of institutionalizing laws to prevent gay couples from enjoying the kind of legal and social support non-gay families already have, is immoral.

Moreover, since the Creator has made it so that among higher mammals homosexual behavior increases in populations under stress, and humanity right now, because of overpopulation and inequitable distribution of resources, is under enormous stress, the phenomenon of gays suddenly stepping forth to demand their right to establish stable family units while not themselves contributing to even greater overpopulation, can be seen to be not only natural but also, literally, a godsend."

Doesn’t it give us something to think about?

Shalom
Bob

42 
 If you say so.  The Supreme Court has apparently disagreed.  So there's some change you want to make on society to make it a better place. A utopian vision is a good thing, I suppose.  But saying that if you aren't in support of gay-marriage, then you aren't really in favor of a free-country has no bearing, in the context of the way this free country actually [i]is[/i].

In other words, you can't say that lifestyle issues are none of societies business on one hand, and then press society to legalize gay marriage on the other.  If this is ever going to happen, [i]someone[/i] is going to have to legalize it, so obviously it is society's business.

Not true. Nobody has the right to marry someone of their same gender, regardless of their genetic make-up. The fact that a gay person is in a position to want to do something currently illegal moreso than a straight person has no bearing. Lots of people want to break laws. Some of those desires may even be genetically influenced. That doesn’t make those laws discriminatory.

43

Well for one thing, even if they did try to “eliminate” the so called disease. There would still be gays being gay. Their would still be gays not reproducing, not adding to our already overpopulated world(oh no!). Prohibition doesnt work, people find ways around it. Why would they make their lives so much harder on purpose?

If it is a disease, than it would have to be a mental disease. Well it doesnt seem to be dangerous like a psychopath or scizophrenic. Would you deny a Depressive happiness? Would you deny them this completly based around your majority? Would you listen to the other half of the country that doesnt agree with you. This half being millions of people. Just think about it out of the context of the bible and justify your bigotry.

44

So, I need to take seriously what the minority of voters wanted, because they are millions upon millions of intelligent, sophisticated people, but the majority who disagrees with you are just a bunch of dumb bigots. Gotcha.

45

Not quite sure if you are agreeing with me, but it seems you are not. So I will take this stance.

Yes I am saying that you need to take the close minority seriously. I did not say stupid dumb bigots anywhere…

I am saying that the majority isnt always right, and when a issue is split between millions. Then there is something wrong. I could understand the majority being right when there is millions versus thousands, but they could still be wrong. I am just saying that their is evidence that supports the milllions that disagree, their is no evidence supporting the anti gays other than their faith, or pure bigotry, yes. Hate. No other explaination. They will not even accept the evdidence we do have. If we showed them genetic evidence, they still would still most likely maintain their stance. Because it is a Sin. It all comes down to what they believe. And what they believe has no evidence, it just says gays are sinners. They go with what they are told to go with, not what is proven right. This is wrong, and shouldnt be the mindset we have in the future. If gays were proven natural through genetics, that would make them gods design. But even if it was a disease, didnt god design these to? Im not sure clarify this for me.

46

This thread isn’t about bestiality… but I’m sure you are welcome to provide all your reasons for believing that Gays will ruin society here. Is it because you don’t want to turn on your TV and see gays having weddings?

I am arguing that it is not the morally correct choice. And that it does not hurt society in any way, shape or form. And that it hurts people and denies them rights, at what expense?

Your argument is that you want to ban gay marriage and bestiality, because they make you uncomfortable. But you can’t give any reasons why it hurts you. What is your reason, why this is a morally better decision than one to ban black people marrying white people, or the decision to force everyone to be e Christian? Furthermore, these people have no way of controlling themselves and your laws will cause them much unnecessary discomfort. Morally, isn’t it your place to tolerate these people? Or is it that, your “moral” estimation of them is that they are tainted by sin? And that they spread sin wherever they go?

47 
 Sure, that could be one example for some folks.  Why would I bother listing how 'gays will ruin society' to [i]you[/i]? It's a subjective question on the outset, and you already said that you find Christianity more repulsive and bestiality, so I can't imagine you'd agree with any of my reasons.

But what does any of that matter? From the point of view of someone you obviously would disagree strongly with, a society with a proliferation of homosexuality is a wrong in and of itself.  To say that it doesn't 'hurt society' is predicated on the idea that there's nothing inherently wrong with the behavior.  If 'there's nothing wrong with the behavior' is the assumption, how do you expect me to argue from there that the behavior ought to be banned?

These things already are banned. My argument is that the current status quo ought to be maintained, because that’s the way the majority wants it, and the gain to be had by overturning these statutes is insignificant to society. If gay marraige had always been accepted and there was a new movement to ban it, that would be a completely different story altogether.

My reason is that homosexual sex is immoral, and I wil vote against my government endorsing immoral things. I will work against, in my own tiny way, my society becoming more accepting of immoral acts.  Why is homosexuality immoral? For a host of reasons, many religious, that you no doubt wouldn't find compelling. What important, though, isn't that you don't find them compelling, but that the larger portion of the American society who determines what's allowed in this country [i]does[/i] find them compelling. 
 An interesting point of note. Despite my religious belief that there are absolute moral truths 'out there', I don't need that belief to support my view.  If morals are completely subjective, then it's still reasonable for majority-rule to carry the day, for that is in essence what 'socially determined ethics' are.  By saying that the majority is wrong, it is YOU that need appeal to a higher authority, and I've yet to hear what that is.
48

Bob, shalom. I did not say the above in anger. The writer mentioned both infantcide and homosexual behaviour as results of overpopulation, so i naturally wondered (and rhetorically asked) if his argument worked equally for both behaviors.

By “social Darwinism” i chiefly meant thinkers advocating that people act with an animal morality. As rational animals there is more to pass on to children than hunting skills, so their styles of parenting might not be sufficient for us. Other posters have said as much that some parents are really bad at this and gay parents might do better. See below:

As for the rest, I see the point clearer; thank you. Now on the basis of natural argument it might be good to find evidence that children raised by two men is psycho-socially healthy. In an earlier post i pointed out that someone has theorized that lack of a father figure leads toward children looking for one – sometimes in the worst places. Would having no mother figure hamper the maturity of the child as well? (See above)

Thanks again, Bob, you are a scholar and a gentleman.

mrn

49

the way i translate this statement is: “there is no logical reason for why gay is immoral, only faith-based reasons” correct me if im wrong about that. if thats so, then you certainly cant be passing laws in this country based on that.

the higher authority is called the golden rule. i look at the situation and i see, very clearly, gays are being denied “a tax break for those who marry the person of their choosing”.

there are only two ways that you can possibly counter this statement. you can say that allowing gay marriage violates the rule just the same, in that it creates gayness and its subsequent badness, or that it hurts the straight observers so much that it counteracts the happiness that married gay couples feel.

or you can say that god ambiguously describes that he hates gays in a 2000 year old book promoted by rich people asking for your money.

if its the latter, get the hell out of my country. if its the former, you have yet to prove your case, and i believe the mantra around here is ‘innocent until proven guilty’ which means dont take away their rights without proving that doing so is good for anybody.

50

youre right. gays are a minority. who cares if they are happy, there are so few of them, when you look at the graph of average american happiness, we will have rounded it up so that you cant possibly notice the happiness that will be lost by continuing to ban the happiness of gays.

how much will be gained by continuing to ban it? cause i can tell you exactly who will be upset if its banned. can you do the same?

what if i told you that the constitution said ‘equality for all’ and it didnt specify ‘sex for procreation only’ and up until now, it was a huge mistake that was overlooked for the sake of protecting the identity of numerous in-the-closet political activisists.

gay people have been so rare and untalked about and so far on the edge of society that they didnt want to alienate themselves by coming out of the closet until recently. until our country recently became the ultimate bastion of freedom. since our president started talking about spreading FREEDOM to all people across the world, no matter what the cost. it is gods mission to spread freedom no matter how many people die horrific deaths by high caliber rifles.

people in our own country want freedom and they dont want to risk high caliber rifle deaths, they maybe would make out in public, worst case scenario.

can you specifically quantify the negative effect of gay marriage? cause i can specifically quantify the OTHER kind of freedom spreading side effects.

51

I am not just assuming there is nothing wrong with the behavior. I see no harm or ill effects of it other than that it is. It doesn’t hurt anyone, it doesn’t ruin any families.

Well just pretend then. You know what I mean, we are talking about philosophical positions here. Besides, doesn’t Bush want to make a constitutional ban? Do you think I might perhaps be referring to this?

Can you find a reason that isn’t religious? This is why people are getting pissed about it. The fact is from my perspective, that these are religious rules based on an entirely different situation thousands of years ago (before the advent of birth control and other modern innovations). And they have become quite obsolete.

I AM appealing to a ‘higher authority’, if you haven’t noticed yet. I am talking about the real moral consequences of actions here, to real people. I am saying that you should consider more closely how these policies affect people’s lives. There are many gay couples that have lived together years as a couple, some that have children, and their lives are affected by this. I know that if the majority has some subjective opinion on things they can do whatever they want. That doesn’t make it right.

52

My point is that a society in which people feel they can legitimately impose their will on others for no better reason than that their religion tells them to do so (i.e. without a burden of proof of concrete harm done without the imposition), in fact is not a free society. It is a theocracy, even if run by majority rule.

I understand what you meant now. I was speaking normatively: all behavior that does not harm others ought to be equally legal without distinction. Prohibition penalized even the vast majority of responsible drinkers; a prohibition on gay marriage is like a prohibition on responsible drinking (though probably without the resultant skyrocketing crime and murder rates) in that the reasons for it are exclusively religious in nature - and when we come to our sense we will realize it was both doomed to failure and unjustly repressive.

I concur one’s sexual lifestyle is society’s business in the same sense that having a beer in one’s home was society’s business in the 30’s because they had to make a decision to allow it. Prohibiting consensual non-third-party-harmful sexual activity is outside of the purview of a free society, by any reasonable definition of the word “free.”

[/quote]

You’re right, but you’re wrong. Desires don’t have a bearing on the discriminatory nature of a law, this is correct. However, there is no reason for allowing only heterosexual marriage that does not violate the establishment clause of the 1st amendment.

53 
 I understand what you're saying, and I think it's legitimate, in so far as 'freedom' is described as having unrestricted access to as many behavior-options as possible. My point is that, if you accept the above, then the United States [i]has never been[/i] a free country, which dulls the impact of your argument by quite a bit.  Saying 'people on X side of the issue aren't in favor of a free society', [i]sounds like[/i] Christians want the country to be like Iran or the USSR- until you realize that even the US has never met your standards for a 'free society'- i doubt any nation ever has.  I think that throws the whole thing into a subjective mess- anyone who thinks the US is a free or mostly free country has no de facto reason to accept your standard. 

There's a moral question, and a legal question here. Are you saying that all behavior that does not harm others is morally neutral, and [i]therefore[/i] ought to be legal, or are you saying that some 'victimless' behaviors may in fact be immoral, but ought to be legal despite that?

The problem I see with this is that homosexual marriage is only being restricted under an extremely narrow view of 'marriage'.  That is to say, gay people are allowed to associate in any way they want- if they want to live a monogamous live-in lifestyle with one partner, they can. 99% of what constitutes a marriage is already available to them- all that's withheld is a certain kind of State acknowledgement, and indirectly, a series of benefits that would flow from that acknowledgement. If all the argument amounts to is an extension of those government benefits, then homosexuals are no different than heterosexual couples who live together but choose not to marry, or other sorts of 'non-traditional' familial relationships that recieve no special acknowledgement- I don't believe an argument for discrimination against those groups would be valid, either.  I've already said that striking down any such benefits is an acceptable solution to me.

[/quote]

54 
Well, people 'deciding' that they want to persue a homo- or bi-sexual lifestyle ruins plenty of families.

Bush’s Amendment would be a clarification and more rock-solid grounding for what is already the case. As far as I can tell, it wouldn’t change what sorts of things are allowed/not allowed.
Yes, if gay marriage had always been legal, and plenty of it had gone on, and it was an established aspect of society, then I wouldn’t, out of the blue, support a measure to outlaw it. Presumably, though, the majority wouldn’t be behind such a measure anyway- that’s why it becomes an issue of philosophical importance here. The acceptance of gay marriage is a change to a society that the majority members of that society have again and again expressed that they don’t want.

 A reason that I would personally argue for or find sound? No- but then I don't think any moral principal can be demonstrably objective without reference to theism, so I'd be the wrong person to ask.

Yes, and having done so, I consider those consequences to small to justify State sanction of behavior that the majority considers immoral and/or disgusting. Too many people simply don’t want to live in a society that includes homosexuality as an accepted part of it’s culture. Those wishes are a thing of value that needs to be respected, and coupled with the fact that I believe homosexual acts are in fact immoral, I believe those wishes overrule the negative impact on the small segment of society that identify as homosexuals, and the even smaller sub-set that has any interest in marriage.

55

yeah, because of bigotry mostly. Should we ban that?

Really? So you actually believe that I have no way of knowing why its bad to hurt another person? You can’t understand why thats bad?

So in other words, your belief says its wrong, so you will ignore any harm that the laws you support do to real people.

56

Your position would be acceptable in a true democracy, a real deal theocracy, a fascist state, and probably pass muster in a communistic country.

It don’t hunt here.

We’re a democratic republic with a Constitution. That means rule of law based upon the Constitution and representative government makes the rules, not the majority with the flavor of the moment feelings.

The fathers of our great nation were very wise. They understood religion better than we do. And they also understood human nature. And most of them had personally seen what happens when human nature is simmered in religion long enough.

That’s why Constitutional Amendments are so rare.

And who knows, there might be a marriage amendment defining marriage as only between a man and a woman. We only have to look at Prohibition to see what happens when religious fervor gets an opportunity to legislate morality.

I personally see this debate as the best thing that can happen to the issue.

By bringing it to the open and having a definition of the perspectives the person too involved with living to think about life will have to examine the issue. I believe that examination will expose the righteous to be irrational at best and bigots at worst.

If homosexuals are only six percent of the population as reported their footprint is still much larger. Most of them have parents, siblings, friends, or at least acquaintances that see them as good people who just happen to be attracted to members of their own sex for companionship.

As I’ve said here and other places, it’s not the gay agenda that’s going to change the definition of homosexuality from perverted to accepted. It’ll be those that love them. Those straight people who walk on the high road of morality.

It’s a little like racism. The little boy goes to kindergarten and finds the boy who’s of a different race is a regular person that’s nice. He has to compare that knowledge to the racism of his parents. Over time most of the time the child comes away with a perspective different from his parents.

Human beings are really quite logical and wonderful in spite of themselves.

57

Interesting perspective. Not very logical, but interesting.

Let’s see, six percent of divorces are caused by homosexuals “deciding” they can no longer live in a heterosexual marriage, one in eighteen divorces, and that’s being generous.

Isn’t that like giving speeding tickets only to green cars because speeding is a threat on the highway? What about the other seventeen? Wouldn’t it be better for society to go after them? They are the bigger problem, right? Seventeen versus one?

Of course with your logic we could ban green cars and make speeding a thing of the past.

58

Hmmmmm, I see the opposite of true. Moral principles come first and then religion always come second.

Consider the Bible and the Commandments.

Every one, even the silly ones concerning same godness, express moral perspectives in almost all human societies.

If you want harmony in a group you don’t kill each other, don’t steal from each other, honor the elders, restrain envy, etc. And of course competing theologies will destroy a group faster’n just about anything. If you don’t believe me come to Texas and count the baptist churches. Baptist churches out number everything but fast food joints down here. One on every corner.

59

consider this uccisore,

recently it hasn’t been, like in Oregon, ohio and Mass, they got civil union rights. But of course as we know from Oregon, ohio and Mass. That was too much.

it would, deny them even basic civil unions. Marriage IS a civil union.

yes had gay marriage always been legal I’d wonder if we were living in a society without predjudice.

yes, yes it is. It’s an issue of predjudice. Like I said before we have two groups here. A religious group denying them their rights because it says too in the bible, and another smaller group of non-religious homophobics, that deny them their rights because they are afraid. afraid of what? afraid of societal change.

I believe I answered that above. The majority in either case is afraid of societal change.

here’s a list I want you anti gay guys/girls to answer:

#1) if a homosexual couple gets civil union rights, how does that affect your personal freedoms? (i.e. the need to make it unconstitutional for them to marry.)

#2) you do realize that marriage is a STATE licsence and the religious part is a choice. (and some christian religions are accepting of homosexuality.)

#3) Do you deny them their basic human rights because:
A) You are afraid they’ll get adoption rights?
B) You are afraid it will make homosexuality spread like a cancer?

#4) Do you really think that stopping either a civil legal union of a marriage is going to stop someone from being gay? their instantly going to become hetero?

#5) I realize that some people choose to have same sex partners when there is no other option(i.e. prison inmate.) but do you seriously think that makes every homosexual doing the act out of choice? If you asked a prison inmate if they were gay 100% would say “no, I do this because there’s no pussy/cock (whichever is opposite).” If they were all doing it out of choice, why not make the choice that will cause you less grief? mankind is inherintly lazy we choose the path of least resistance.

#6) Do you feel good about denying a group of people their basic human rights? Does it complete you?

#7) you do realize that if homosexual marriage was allowed, it would make homosexual permiscuity go down, and perhaps even heterosexual permiscuity. Alot of heterosexual permiscuity is caused by men or women who are afraid to come out of the closet due to unfair social constraints against homosexuality, so they marry the opposite sex are never satisfied so have affairs to try and find that satisifaction. (generalizing here.)

#8 ) if they were allowed full marriage rights, how would it affect you personally? Would it turn your kids gay?

#9) what about Transexuals? Should they be hetero or homosexual?
either way if you think about it, they could be having hetero sex or homosexual sex. or do you anti homosexuals, conveniently leave them out?

60

is that why the majority thinks it should be banned?

if it is in such desperate need of clarifying, what makes bush and jesus christ so certain about what it actually means? and so certain that the welfare of the american people requires withholding rights from others? seems like withholding rights should require a lot clarification, not the other way around.

people express a lot of things, like love of slavery and marijuana

your obviously wrong about murder, unless you think solipsism is the only conclusion about reality you can come to without refering to theism. and if this is your belief, then it is completely valid for the US to mandate weekly holy cracker consumption, since refering to dusty old books is just great when it comes to making laws in this country.

i guess this is now where the argument lies. you think that denying a small number of people rights is counterbalanced by a large number of people not being disgusted.

this is ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY NOT THE SLIGHTEST BIT DIFFERENT from quarantining lepers on an island just so that nobody has to see them. if there was no evidence showing that leprosy is contagious, then the decision to move them out of our hair is CLEARLY IMMORAL.

argue with that.