Christian Fundamentalist Wacko?

If I do not believe gay marriage should be condoned by society as a whole…Does that make me a Christian Fundamentalist Wacko?

Independent of the above…If I do not believe gay marriage should be condoned by the particular state in which I live…Does that make me a Christian Fundamentalist Wacko?

If I lobby for certain standards within society, based on my Christian beliefs…Does that make me a Christian Fundamentalist Wacko?

If I am against legalization of gay marriage, but not against a womans right to choose…Does that make me a Hypocritical Christian Fundamentalist Wacko?

Only if you stated that you were against gay marriage because Jesus said so.

Same answer as above.

I don’t know if you’d be a whacko, but you would be a Xtian Fundie…or a Bush supporter…

Hmmm…difficult to answer… (Leaves this one to be answered by Future Man)…

Many would say so. I would just say you’re following the tenets of your faith as you understand them to the best of your ability. As a faithful and moral person, you could do nothing else.

Which is precisely why civilization is presently fucked. :wink: Many people of many faiths and philosophies all doing the right thing. But since no one agrees on what the right thing is, many are mutually exclusive and incompatible with everyone elses.

yes it very much does. you believe that banning gayness is good for some unknown reason. actually, if you beleve that gayness will spread once legalized, then thats rational, just not true. if you think that people born with this affliction should be forced to be virgins unlike you are forced, even though no empirical earthly good will come of this, then that is the ultimate stupidity of christianity.

if you ascribe to one ridiculous christian dogma against all reason, then surely you ascribe to all, because it doesnt matter that more or less reason supports a dogma, if youre going to ascribe to the most ridiculous of them all, gayness, then surely youd ascribe to one that is much less ridiculous.

im interested to hear why you want to ban gays, because i think it is rooted in a misunderstanding of the problem. gays have to be gay just like you have to be straight. they cant change. with that in mind, do you still think they should be virgins? ie do you think god gave you the right to have sex with who you want and not them?

Hi Dust of the earth,

I find it interesting to read how these arguments are put forward, “but I’m only …” However, if you had these kind of opinions and try to enforce them, it means you are using the freedom the state gives you by infringing upon the freedom of others. You clearly want to prevent those things that other people (in this case homosexuals) consider as normal.

Now the argument normally put forward is that these people infringe upon you own freedom by behaving in such a manner on the street. But do they? Is holding hands or even giving someone a kiss regarded as explicit sexual behaviour? It is unusual, but isn’t the assessment of such behaviour based upon the hate of such behaviour or persons?

I would only judge a behaviour by which heteros are sexually harassed by homosexuals as unreasonable and forbid it, and vice versa. But I would so in the same way that I would want to protect women or children, or men who can’t protect themselves. The occupation with the sexuality of others actually promotes the confrontation with that behaviour, suggesting that it is more widespread than it is. More widespread is sexual abuse of wives - but that doesn’t seem to be a subject for Fundamentalists.

Shalom
Bob

D of E,

I think you’ve hit on a confusing dilemma that Americans are currently struggling with. It really doesn’t make any difference what your personal values might be, since all of us have different ideas of what the ‘perfect world’ should look like. I think that the crux of the matter is distinguishing between your personal beliefs and values, and your public ‘duty as a citizen’ in the society in which you live. It is one thing to be against homosexuality and against gay marriage (personal values) and quite another to live in a society that upholds equality before the law.
Our society upholds the principle of equal rights for all of its’ citizens and to practice your citizenship means that you will uphold the rights of those you disagree with as strongly as you would those of whom you agree. Either that principle will be observed or we will simply begin governing by the whims of majority rule, which can change every election cycle.

It would be wonderful if rational discourse could be the rule when looking at the ‘dividing’ issues such as abortion or gay union. Sadly, that isn’t the reality. The confused disparity between our personal values and our responsibilities as citizens has divided us into warring camps. It’s us or them. Dialog has been replaced with diatribe, as each ‘side’ vainlessly tries to gain the upper hand.

Are you a fundamentalist whacko to be against homosexuality or abortion? No. Those belong to your personal and private beliefs. You become a fundamentalist whacko when you say that same sex marraige has to be abolished because the bible says so. That may be your personal belief, but remember, as a citizen of this society you also have the responsibility to protect the equal rights of ALL citizens, even if their beliefs are diametrically opposed to yours. I hate it when that happens!

An example: I do not, and never have liked porn or sexploitation. I don’t like seeing it on TV, It was never in my home, and my children were taught the negative issues involved in looking at another human being as a piece of meat. I’m absolutely disgusted with the current slut competition with the likes of Britney Spears and Paris Hilton. Still, as a citizen, I am obligated to protect their rights to be what they’re gonna’ be.
What a dilemma. These people certainly don’t represent my personal values and I have to let them keep producing this crap and selling it on MTV? Yes. If dialog were possible, perhaps we could find consensus on some reasoned and reasonable restrictions to keep it down to a dull roar, but that isn’t very likely.

Don’t ever let anyone attack your personal beliefs, live your values, and protect everyone else’s right to do the same.

JT

The debates on Gay Marriage and Abortion are just there for people to use up their time to throw out their failing moral values.

Personally, I have nothing wrong with Gay Marriage, and Abortion is sometimes necessary, but is something that I DONT want to see images of, or hear about too much. Know what I mean? I’m very liberal, but think some things should be held with some type of… quiet reverance.

Wow…

I think we are all attempting to get down to the heart of the matter. I myself am searching…I really am. I’ve approached the issue strictly from a common sense POV. I live my life from day to day not wishing to bring harm to anybody. I just want to live and let live, but when society comes to me and asks who I think should be president, or what I think about gay marriages…I will give my honest opinion on the issues at hand. Some here in this thread believe I should not focus on the particular issue, but rather look beyond to the far broader issue of freedom. The fact is…Freedom in soceity comes with limitations…It’s the majority who determine those limitations…not me, or Christians in general.

Gays are people who live among us…I accept that, and even have a gay friend. Do I condone his gayness…no I dont, but big deal who am I. I have my own standards I live by…even some of those standards are limited to some degree or another by society…I accept that, and usually stay within those limits. Do I think of societies limitations being levied on me as unfair? I might, but I still have to abide by the wishes of the majority or pay the consequences.

I have nothing against people gay or otherwise, I just want to live my own life. If asked to offically state my opinion by casting a vote, I usually comply. The greater issue of how much freedom an individual has within society is resolved in a collective effort of society.

after debating with some “christian fundamentalist wacko” alive and kicking here in the forum, i realised some thing that applies to them all: they love the idea of having an all powful being behind, to protect them from their own twisted reasoning, weak emotion and wacky psych, also to give them the ground to express the bias and aggresion inside them, e.g. giving a hard time to homosexuals. I’m not bothered to argue with what should the christian position on gay issues be anymore, 'cause basically, the christian position represents an extreme reasoning. bye the way arendt, it’s these guys who can’t take the truth.

D of E,

Sound’s like you have a fairly healthy approach. There is one issue that I see a bit differently. I do agree that living in any society mean’s having to accept some limitations. We all do. I would suggest that we have to be careful when making laws that limit what you or I can do. If the law is to be observed by most of the people most of the time, a simple majority doesn’t work. For a law to be accepted and abided by there must be near consensus. This was what we found with all the alcohol prohibition laws. Yes, they could get a majority, but they could not find anything close to consensus, and those laws failed. Additionally, we want to be very careful claiming simple majority rule, as this can change overnight. 51% is a majority, but a 2% swing is a complete reversal. Perhaps simple majority work’s if you are always in the majority, but if you should find yourself in the 49% area…

JT

if someone asked you “should gay civil unions be banned”, is your honest opinion that gay people should not have the same rights as other people, or is your honest opinion simply that jesus hates gayness?

if the former, get out of my country. if the latter, you have simply been misled and have no reason to force your silly beliefs on people who dont claim to be christian.

your honest opinion on gayness shouldnt be interfering with voting correctly against the gayness bans. if your honest opinion is that some americans should have less rights, you are incorrect. if you think that gay men who cant have a civil union with the person of their choice has the same amount of rights as a straight person who can, you are incorrect. if you think gayness will cause hurricanes in florida, get off my planet.

Homosexuality is perfectly natural, in all it’s seemingly unnaturalism. Gays are equal to us.
I think that sums up what FutureMan is saying.