Do Christians really overly persecute homosexuals?

[fallingblood]

Now, fallingblood...I appreciate your willingness to look at your message from another person's POV. I am asking you to take yet one more step toward understanding the ire you see from outspoken queers on this forum.

It's just one moment....on this very forum, there have been members who are not only shrugging off, but SUPPORTIVE of execution for homosexuals, and have been outspoken about it. Take one minute to understand that reading that is alarming, sickening, frightening....far more than simply insulting. In other words, it isn't that much of a leap to visualize these same people more than happy to watch someone like me being tortured and killed. I'm also not the only one who has noticed. I suspect you're seeing the reactions to these mindsets, but I take issue with your assertion that we're "blowing it out of proportion."

I'm honestly not trying to downplay the problem. I was not aware that there were people on these forums who were supportive of the execution of homosexuals.

I have heard of some stories of different homosexuals being brutally killed. Primarily, I have only heard about them when people like Pat Robertson condone them and claim they are burning in hell. I've seen the actions of the Westboro Baptist church. And like you said, those actions are alarming, sickening, frightening, and far more than simply insulting. I believe people should be vocal against those. They should fight against those.

I don't mean to imply that all homosexuals are blowing the problem out of proportion. For the most part, I would say that the vast majority of homosexuals don't. I only meant to imply that a specific group does, a minority. I would never suggest that all homosexuals, or even a majority of homosexuals are blowing things out of proportion.

 

[LuisDantas]

No - burning bibles, or beating people up, or discriminating against them because they read the bible, is intolerant. Saying it's a book of fairy tales is expressing an opinion on the content.

Frubals.

 

[fallingblood]

i don't hink you know what you are saying
who are you referring to?
and what do you mean to a point...bigotry is intolerable. bigotry is hate. bigotry is fear...how can that be tolerated to a point?

are you afraid to offend the status quo?

are you confident in your self dignity?

I don't think you know what I'm saying. If we go back to my original post, the who in which I'm speaking of becomes very clear. The who are fundamental Christians. However, does the who really matter? Not at all. It goes for anyone.

The fact though is that a person is free to be a bigot. They have the right to be intolerable of other people. They have the right to hate other people. The point that it should not be tolerated is as soon as it crosses over and starts stepping on other people's rights. But they also have the freedom of speech. One may not agree with what they say, but they have the right to say it. And it is at that time that freedom of speech must be protected.

As for your other questions, I don't think they warrant a response as they have no bearing on what I stated.

 

[6Michael6Bennett6]

And saying the Bible is a meaningless book of fairy tales, that is showing intolerance as well. Just thought I'd point that out.

Thanks for pointing that out.
Now, tolerance can be defined: "sympathy for beliefs or practice other than your own". A synonym for sympathy is pity. I do not nor will I ever pity christians. Their stupid actions will never recieve pity from me, as I believe that the one who commits stupidity should not be shielded from its effects.
Another way tolerance can be defined: "the allowable deviation from standard"; in the context we are using it in, it would be referring to them having different beliefs than my own. *ALLOWABLE*--I allow them to practice their own beliefs, I cannot, and should not stop them; all I am saying is that in my opinion, their beliefs are fairy tales.
If you were trying to say that I do not accept their beliefs, that would be fine. I do not accept their beliefs, to me they are nothing of value. To me they are also nothing to respect; for respect is "to hold in high or special regard". I cannot say that I would ever hold their religion in high regard.

 

[waitasec]

I don't think you know what I'm saying. If we go back to my original post, the who in which I'm speaking of becomes very clear. The who are fundamental Christians. However, does the who really matter? Not at all. It goes for anyone.

I've never stated that gay people should not stand up to bigotry and hatred. I would object if they stood up by spreading bigotry and hatred, but that is their right as well (to a point).

the "who" are the HOMOSEXUALS

My first point was that not all Christians persecute or even hate homosexuals. That is was a minority. My second point is that some homosexuals exaggerate the extent of the problem. I've stated my intentions a variety of times.

how can you be the judge of that?

The fact though is that a person is free to be a bigot. They have the right to be intolerable of other people. They have the right to hate other people. The point that it should not be tolerated is as soon as it crosses over and starts stepping on other people's rights. But they also have the freedom of speech. One may not agree with what they say, but they have the right to say it. And it is at that time that freedom of speech must be protected.

As for your other questions, I don't think they warrant a response as they have no bearing on what I stated.

if we BELIEVE ALL men are EQUAl then we should be confident in the notion that ones belief does not trump another's inalienable rights

 

[sojourner]

My second point is that some homosexuals exaggerate the extent of the problem.

Oh? In what way? To what extent? Who gets to set that bar?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Oh? In what way? To what extent? Who gets to set that bar?

I wonder the same thing. Persecution is persecution. Any of it at all warrants me throwing one of my heels at the perpetrators.

 

[Autodidact]

I said with the person you love. Your obviousely not still with the father and the love was maybe never realy there.

Well, he's still a good friend, but we never had sex.

I never said it was impossible for women to bear children, that goes without saying. But creating life with the person you truely love (both ways) is a great experience and should be told from both sides. I dont agree with the standards of straight people either, I dont support strip clubs and demeaning companies like them. My only point has been that its important for people to know what they might be giving up for their goal.

I knew him quite well, but none of that was the point. The point was having a baby.

 

[fallingblood]

how can you be the judge of that?

You conveniently left out the word some in your bolding. And I have supported my position by stating what I think are exaggerations.

if we BELIEVE ALL men are EQUAl then we should be confident in the notion that ones belief does not trump another's inalienable rights

That does not mean that they shouldn't be able to hold those beliefs. That is their right. Yes, they shouldn't be allowed to act on those beliefs if that would take away the rights of others; however, they have the right to hold their own beliefs. We all have the right to our beliefs. That doesn't mean we should be able to act on all of our beliefs, but that does not mean we shouldn't be able to hold them.

Also, I don't understand why you stated that "the who are homosexuals"? I also don't understand why it matters, in the context that I have it.

 

[fallingblood]

Oh? In what way? To what extent? Who gets to set that bar?

LuisDantas had asked what I thought the exaggerations were. I will repost my reply to him:

We have had a couple in this thread. The one is that a homosexual can not walk down the street without being fearful. That a homosexual can not walk out their door without being fearful. That homosexuals don't have any rights. I guess that is three, but they went hand in hand.

Another is that fundamental Christians all hate homosexuals and mirror the Westboro Baptist Church. That simply is not the case.

Relating to the previous one, the idea that fundamental Christians, as a whole, are out there conspiring against homosexuals, and other choice minorities (I honestly don't know what these minorities are, as it has never been stated, or at least I don't recall) to basically get rid of them.

I did say that they claim that there struggle is equal to the black struggle a few decades past, but I do want to publicly retract that one.

Now, I also acknowledge that it is a minority within the homosexual community that are making these sentiments.

 

[waitasec]

You conveniently left out the word some in your bolding. And I have supported my position by stating what I think are exaggerations.



That does not mean that they shouldn't be able to hold those beliefs. That is their right. Yes, they shouldn't be allowed to act on those beliefs if that would take away the rights of others; however, they have the right to hold their own beliefs. We all have the right to our beliefs. That doesn't mean we should be able to act on all of our beliefs, but that does not mean we shouldn't be able to hold them.

Also, I don't understand why you stated that "the who are homosexuals"? I also don't understand why it matters, in the context that I have it.

hold all the beliefs YOU want
just don't think your beliefs can infringe on anyones rights

 

[fallingblood]

hold all the beliefs YOU want
just don't think your beliefs can infringe on anyones rights

That is what I've been saying. I don't know where the miscommunication is.

 

[waitasec]

That is what I've been saying. I don't know where the miscommunication is.

the "miscommunication" came from the "over use " of the word persecution
and "not condoning" homosexual "behavior", still don't get what that's all about... not to worry just as long as you realize your not condoning a homosexuals behavior based on your beliefs doesn't mean your beliefs can infringe on their inalienable rights

 

[fallingblood]

the "miscommunication" came from the "over use " of the word persecution
and "not condoning" homosexual "behavior", still don't get what that's all about... not to worry just as long as you realize your not condoning a homosexuals behavior based on your beliefs doesn't mean your beliefs can infringe on their inalienable rights

I never said that I don't condone homosexuality. I've said the opposite, very clearly.

 

[sojourner]

I wonder the same thing. Persecution is persecution. Any of it at all warrants me throwing one of my heels at the perpetrators.

A swift sidekick to the solar plexus would be about right...

 

[sojourner]

LuisDantas had asked what I thought the exaggerations were. I will repost my reply to him:

We have had a couple in this thread. The one is that a homosexual can not walk down the street without being fearful. That a homosexual can not walk out their door without being fearful. That homosexuals don't have any rights. I guess that is three, but they went hand in hand.

Another is that fundamental Christians all hate homosexuals and mirror the Westboro Baptist Church. That simply is not the case.

Relating to the previous one, the idea that fundamental Christians, as a whole, are out there conspiring against homosexuals, and other choice minorities (I honestly don't know what these minorities are, as it has never been stated, or at least I don't recall) to basically get rid of them.

I did say that they claim that there struggle is equal to the black struggle a few decades past, but I do want to publicly retract that one.

Now, I also acknowledge that it is a minority within the homosexual community that are making these sentiments.

So you get to set the bar?
If I had to wonder every time I walked out of my house, whether I would be under scrutiny, if I had to look over my shoulder every time I wanted to perform a PDA, if the great preponderance of religious programming bashes homosexuality, if there even has to be debate about whether or not I can get married, I'd tend to generalize, too. And it would be justified, because that kind of oppression diminishes our world no matter how limited it is.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

A swift sidekick to the solar plexus would be about right...

With heels on!

So you get to set the bar?
If I had to wonder every time I walked out of my house, whether I would be under scrutiny, if I had to look over my shoulder every time I wanted to perform a PDA, if the great preponderance of religious programming bashes homosexuality, if there even has to be debate about whether or not I can get married, I'd tend to generalize, too. And it would be justified, because that kind of oppression diminishes our world no matter how limited it is.

Not to mention just how many homosexual teens are harassed, abused, or thrown out of their houses for being queer.

Thanks for understanding, Soj.

 

[fallingblood]

So you get to set the bar?
If I had to wonder every time I walked out of my house, whether I would be under scrutiny, if I had to look over my shoulder every time I wanted to perform a PDA, if the great preponderance of religious programming bashes homosexuality, if there even has to be debate about whether or not I can get married, I'd tend to generalize, too. And it would be justified, because that kind of oppression diminishes our world no matter how limited it is.

I'm using the definition of the word exaggerate: represent (something) as being larger, greater, better, or worse than it really is. There is no bar that I'm setting.

If someone could prove that in fact the claims that I believe to be exaggerations are in fact what actually happens, then I would retract that belief. However, no one has been able to show me that they are not in fact exaggerations. If the people who made these claims came forward and stated that they were just generalizations, and were not true for all, then I would retract my statement.

However, the opposite has been the case. We have one member here who claims that every single fundamentalist Christian act like the individuals of the Westboro Baptist Church. That is an exaggeration and simply untrue. There is a member here who claims that homosexuals don't have any rights. There is no reason to believe he is making generalizations as he has over and over again claimed that he is speaking the truth. In that case then, there is no doubt in my mind that he is exaggerating.

I'm not setting a bar here. I'm not saying that there is a level of persecution that is alright. What I'm saying is that some homosexuals, a minority, are making gross exaggerations which I believe detracts from the actual problem. And since it seems like these individuals seem to be more vocal, it can eventually prove troublesome to the actual struggle for gay rights.

 

[fallingblood]

With heels on!



Not to mention just how many homosexual teens are harassed, abused, or thrown out of their houses for being queer.

Thanks for understanding, Soj.

I'm honestly not trying to say that there isn't a problem. I acknowledge that there is a serious problem. That the treatment that homosexuals face is unacceptable. However, can you really tell me that the exaggerations that I posted are true, that they accurately portray the problems that homosexuals face?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I'm honestly not trying to say that there isn't a problem. I acknowledge that there is a serious problem. That the treatment that homosexuals face is unacceptable. However, can you really tell me that the exaggerations that I posted are true, that they accurately portray the problems that homosexuals face?

My problem with your rants are that you're dismissive of what is really happening. And that you're frustrated and angry over IMO the wrong things. If you went this ballstic over how irrational homophobes are, you won't have this many of RF's GLBTQ community breathing down your neck.