Do Christians really overly persecute homosexuals?

[fallingblood]

You really don't seem to understand that when someone is persecuted, they should be able to complain about it as much as they like. There is no possible way to 'make things seem more than they really are' in the case of persecution.

I don't accept that. The fact is, there will always be minorities. There will always be persecution, or discrimination in some form. The reason being that in a free country, a place where we can better ourselves, where we can become richer than others, more powerful than others, etc, there will not be complete equality. Simply, one can not have it both ways. And as history shows, since there won't be complete equality, since there will be social stratification, there will be persecution or discrimination to some point.

Maybe, in the distant future, people will learn to be different. However, there is no foreseeable time that this will happen. Thus, at some point, it is something that must be dealt with. There is a level of persecution or discrimination nearly everyone will feel at some point or another.

And I disagree that it is not possible to make things seem more than they really are. If someone says the whole world is against them, and trying to exterminate them, that is blowing it out of proportion.

But you are. For the simple reason that you talk as if you think you can measure the level of abuse homosexuals experience now and have in the past, and then somehow compare that with abuse experienced by others. I asked before just exactly how anybody could conceivably measure this, and you didn't respond.

Maybe one can not measure exactly, or in the sense of a simple graph, the abuse one has experienced. However, one can also see that some struggles have been worse. Is the current struggle that homosexuals are facing in the U.S. equal to the Jewish struggle during World War II era in Europe? I would say not at all. There is a clear distinction between the two. That does not mean that homosexuals in the U.S. should be happy that they aren't facing mass genocide and thus should be content with the persecution they feel. It is not downplaying their struggle.

We can see which each group has gone through. We can compare the struggles, and it is actually a valuable thing to do so. There are similarities between many persecuted groups. Seeing how others have overcome those experiences can greatly help.

Again, how could you possibly know this without having measured it? You can't possibly measure it because you cannot know the details of every individual case of persecution of the past, let alone what is happening now or how those individuals feel, or what they experience on a day to day basis.

Maybe not every individual case, but if we would rely on something like that, there is a lot of things we couldn't know. We don't need to know every individual case of persecution. We don't need to know every individual experience day by day. We don't know how medication will work on every single individual, but that doesn't mean we can't become informed about the effects in general and get a relatively accurate account.

 

[fallingblood]

It's that they focus on homosexuality so much more than things like premarital sex for instance, which is MUCH more prevalent. I think I've read only 4% of people are openly gay, but 9 out of 10 people have had sex before marriage. And there's so many other things as well. But, it just seems there's more focus than their should be. I would say I'm lucky to be in a long-term relationship with a guy because my parents would never talk to me again if I wanted to marry a girl. But they know I'm sexually active outside of marriage and they could absolutely care less. They lived together before they were married as well.

I agree that some do focus on homosexuality more than other issues. Personally, I've never been to a church that taught hatred, or even mentioned homosexuality.

I grew up in a fundamentalist Christian home. The topic of homosexuality really never came up. When it did, hatred was not part of it. It was said that homosexuality was a sin, but that was the extent of it. My wives family are Bible literalists, and they believe the homosexuality is a sin; however, hatred has never been a part of it. Ignorance certainly has, but not hatred.

I am aware that some churches do focus too much on it though. But I think the extent is over exaggerated to a point. There are many instances that it seems as if the claim is that fundamentalist churches are always spreading hatred about homosexuality. It never should be the case, but I don't think it happens as much as some claim.

 

[Duck]

I agree that some do focus on homosexuality more than other issues. Personally, I've never been to a church that taught hatred, or even mentioned homosexuality.

I grew up in a fundamentalist Christian home. The topic of homosexuality really never came up. When it did, hatred was not part of it. It was said that homosexuality was a sin, but that was the extent of it. My wives family are Bible literalists, and they believe the homosexuality is a sin; however, hatred has never been a part of it. Ignorance certainly has, but not hatred.

I am aware that some churches do focus too much on it though. But I think the extent is over exaggerated to a point. There are many instances that it seems as if the claim is that fundamentalist churches are always spreading hatred about homosexuality. It never should be the case, but I don't think it happens as much as some claim.

Let's assume for a moment that you are correct. That there are only a few churches and church organizations that focus "too much" on homosexuality, and only a few churches and church organizations that work to strip LGBT people of existing rights. If these groups are the minority, then, well, for that majority I would have to say "Silence is consent." If the majority does not actively (or at least vocally) oppose the discrimination, persecution and hatred espoused by their minority brethren, then the majority condones it. In other words, since I hear very little from the "majority" of churches that don't at least vocally oppose groups like Westboro baptist church, AFTAH, AFA, FotF, LDS and NOM as these groups spread lies, disinformation and work (as vocal "minorities") to strip LGBT people of their rights, well then, I have to assume they approve of the actions of this "minority" of groups. Since the "majority" approves of the "minority" then, well that "minority" isn't really that "minor" now is it?

 

[MacKinnon]

Maybe, in the distant future, people will learn to be different. However, there is no foreseeable time that this will happen. Thus, at some point, it is something that must be dealt with

So now you think it is something that must be dealt with, as opposed to something that should just be accepted as you mentioned earlier?

There will also be a level of persecution. That will never be eradicated. Today, in America, Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Blacks, Whites, straight, gay, whatever face persecution to a point. That is simply life. It may not be right, but that is something that can never be eradicated. At some point, this has to be accepted.

So when do you suppose a good time for dealing with this would be, since it seems you are annoyed, and have no sympathy for the people who are attempting to deal with it now?

 

[Jeremiah]

I have no problem with homosexuals in general. I would never advocate for the majority of homosexuals to just shut up and be gone. And I have no problem with homosexuals seeking their equal rights, or for standing up for what they believe in. The majority of homosexuals, in my opinion, do not whine about these issues or make things seem more than they really are.

I'm speaking about a specific group, who in my opinion, has blown things grossly out of proportion. I'm talking about a group who show the same hatred and prejudice against Christians as they claim Christians are showing them. I'm talking about a group who believes the world is out to get them, and that somehow, their struggle is more than it really is (I am not downplaying the struggle the homosexuals have had to face, and still do. I'm simply stating that they are not the most persecuted people who have lived, which I think most people would agree with. That is not to justify what is happening to homosexuals by stating others have had it worse).

I personally think that homosexuals should be glad that they didn't have to face what blacks did a few decades ago, what women had to face a few decades ago, simply because now they don't have such a long way to climb to gain the same equality. What I mean is that the U.S. has a long history of persecuting groups, and those groups rising up and gaining their equality. Each group is able to stand on the shoulders of the previous groups. New problems are faced with each group, because they are discriminated against in some different ways. But they do gain from the previous groups as well.

And one of the problems that I personally think is harming the homosexual community are the individuals who are making the problem into something it is not. They may be a minority within the minority, but I believe they are harming the cause much more than they are helping. For instance, to demonize all of Christianity, or even a substantial branch is doing nothing more than making people angry, and making those people less willing to help. This is not to say that Christianity, at least sects of it, shouldn't be criticized for their intolerant beliefs, because they should. However, it should be done in a way that opens up discussion, instead of blocking any hope that an understanding may occur.

"I'm speaking about a specific group, who in my opinion, has blown things grossly out of proportion. "

I think you are blowing this "specific group" grossly out of proportion, I also think that you are, in fact, "downplaying" the challenges homosexuals have faced. I don't think you this intently, though, I just think you don't really have a clue what you are talking about.

"I personally think that homosexuals should be glad that they didn't have to face what blacks did a few decades ago,"

Why direct that towards homosexuals of today? That would also apply to African Americans of today. However, a few decades ago, given the opportunity, they would have strung the homosexual up right next to the dark-skin guy. At any rate, simply because there has been progress, that is no excuses to leave the job half-finished.


"because now they don't have such a long way to climb to gain the same equality. What I mean is that the U.S. has a long history of persecuting groups, and those groups rising up and gaining their equality. Each group is able to stand on the shoulders of the previous groups. New problems are faced with each group, because they are discriminated against in some different ways. But they do gain from the previous groups as well. "

This is not a matter of one group following the next, this is has been and is, an ongoing struggle for all groups.

I think you need a history lesson.

The earliest known gay rights organization was formed in 1924. That is 30 years before the recognized start of the civil rights movement. It was called the Society for Human Rights, it was short lived; a few months after they received charter from the state of Illinois, several of the Society's member were arrested.

[T]o promote and protect the interests of people who by reasons of mental and physical abnormalities are abused and hindered in the legal pursuit of happiness which is guaranteed them by the Declaration of Independence and to combat the public prejudices against them by dissemination of factors according to modern science among intellectuals of mature age. The Society stands only for law and order; it is in harmony with any and all general laws insofar as they protect the rights of others, and does in no manner recommend any acts in violation of present laws nor advocate any manner inimical to the public welfare.

Society for Human Rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In 1924 punishment for homosexual acts was long term imprisonment. In 1962 Illinois become the first state to decriminalize homosexual acts. Gay rights is not a new thing to our country, it goes back to the beginning. In 1779, Thomas Jefferson proposed a law that would mandate castration for gay males and mutilation of nose cartilage for gay woman. This was considered progressive and an improvement the previous death penalty.

The gays are not standing on the shoulders of the previous groups, because they are part of the previous groups. It is not one group standing on the others shoulders, it is people, standing shoulder to shoulder fighting for equal rights, for all.

"And one of the problems that I personally think is harming the homosexual community are the individuals who are making the problem into something it is not. They may be a minority within the minority, but I believe they are harming the cause much more than they are helping. For instance, to demonize all of Christianity, or even a substantial branch is doing nothing more than making people angry, and making those people less willing to help. This is not to say that Christianity, at least sects of it, shouldn't be criticized for their intolerant beliefs, because they should. However, it should be done in a way that opens up discussion, instead of blocking any hope that an understanding may occur."

"making the problem into something it is not."

I personally believe, that you really have no clue what you are taking about and that you are trying to make the problem into something it is not. However, most cases, the angry reaction against the church is first seeded by the church, itself.

You go ahead and nick-pick about your "minority within the minority." But the fact remains that gays are not suppressing the inalienable of the Christians. Gays, by large, are not trying to influence the laws to suppress freedom of religion, in any way. While many of it's followers of the church, have been and continue to push for suppression of gay rights. I am have little doubt that in 1779 Thomas Jefferson faced Christian opposition, pushing to keep the death penalty. That in 1924, Christians applauded the arrest of the Society's members. That in 1962 there were Christians pushing to keep homosexuals act criminalized in Illinois. But, you'd be hard pressed to find a significant act of homosexuals pushing for suppression of the Christians right to freedom of religion.

 

[idea]

"If you look at the attempted suicide rate in San Francisco, it's extremely high among gays, as is the rate of substance abuse, alcoholism and homosexual 'domestic' violence," Maier said. "It seems quite a stretch to blame the attempted suicide rate on anti-gay bias," -- particularly since the study was done in cities where homosexuality is not only condoned but widely endorsed, and often promoted by civic authorities."

HOMOSEXUAL SUICIDE RATES FALSELY BLAMED ON 'ANTI-GAY' BIAS BY STUDY AUTHOR

They kill themselves in areas "where homosexuality is not only condoned but widely endorsed" so I guess their problems do not all stem from the Bible Belt states...

the Bell & Weinberg (1978) study for the Kinsey Institute analysed a 1969 volunteer sample of 575 white predominantly homosexual San Francisco males [2] with a mean age of 37 years, reflecting the youth situation existing between 1930 to 1969. In the Kinsey Institute study, results were compared with those from a stratified random sample of predominantly heterosexual males taken in the same area, controlling for age, education, and occupational level. By the age of 20 years, homosexual males were shown to have been 13.6 times at greater risk for a suicide attempt, based on suicide attempt rates of 9.6 and 0.7 percent for homosexual and heterosexual males, respectively.
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times]From the various North American studies, the lifetime attempted suicide rate for adolescent homosexual males appears to have tripled (9.6% to 31.3%) from about 1950 to 1990, which is similar to the two- to four-fold increases in the suicide rate for Canadian and American adolescents and youth during the same period (Berman & Jobes, 1995; Lipschitz, 1995; Health Canada, 1994). Compared to a recently reported lifetime attempted suicide rate of 3.2 percent for male adolescents [3], gay and bisexual male adolescents associated with North American gay communities are about 10-times more at risk (31.3% vs. 3.2%) for a suicide attempt than adolescent males not differentiated on the basis of sexual orientation.[/FONT]

homosexuals are now much more widely accepted than they were in 1950. Acceptance goes up, but their suicide rates have also gone way up - so their happiness is not linked to acceptance... If accepting them and their lifestyles made them happier, suicide rates would have gone down.

The stratified random sample of 750 young adult males produced a 12.7 percent estimate for males classified homosexual and/or bisexual on the basis of self-identification (11.1%) and/or current homosexual activity (9.2%). A total of 115 of the 750 males (15.3%) reported having had consenting homosexual experiences at some point since the age of twelve and/or self-identified as homosexual and/or bisexual at the time of the survey. These results are presented and discussed in Bagley and Tremblay (in press), and the demographic estimates are judged to be more accurate than the one to three percent estimates for homosexually oriented males produced in recent studies such as Billy, Tanfer, Grady & Klepinger (1993), Michael, Gagnon, Laumann & Kolata (1994), and Binson et al. (1995). These studies used telephone or face-to-face interviews to collect data.
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times]The figures on suicidality and suicidal behaviours (Table 12.1) confirm earlier findings that homosexual and bisexual males have a higher incidence of suicidal thoughts and actions than heterosexual males. Celibate heterosexual men also have a high score on the suicidality index and on the measure of current depression, but no reported serious suicide attempts. The most at risk group in terms of actual suicidal behaviours, suicidal ideation in the past six months, and depression in the past two weeks, are celibate self-identifying homosexual males. They had the highest proportion of individuals in the "self-harm" category (46.1%: 6/13), followed by celibate heterosexual males (17.7%: 22/124), compared with 10.8% (4/37), 9.4% (3/32), and 2.8% (15/544) rates, respectively, for their sexually active bisexual, homosexual, and heterosexual counterparts.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times]Within the sexually active male groups, males classified homosexual and bisexual were nearly three times more likely (risk ratio 2.94 : 1) to have engaged in self-harm at some point in their lifetime, than heterosexual males. Homosexual and bisexual men are six (3.1% vs. 0.5%) to eleven times (5.4% vs. 0.5%) more likely to have made a life-threatening suicide attempt than heterosexual males. Celibate homosexual men had the highest serious suicide attempt rate (2/13: 15.5%). For the 10.9 percent of males classified as homosexually oriented (currently homosexually active males, and celibate homosexual males), the risk ratio for a life-threatening suicide attempt was 13.86 : 1; that is, these males were almost fourteen times (5/82: 6.1% vs. 3/688: 0 .44%) more likely to have made a serious suicide attempt at some point in their lives than their heterosexually oriented counterparts. They also accounted for 62.5% (5/8) of the serious suicide attempters (X2 = 17.69 p less than .001, df = 1).

[/FONT]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9141776?dopt=Abstract

 

[MacKinnon]

It is indeed dangerous to assume that there is a single cause for suicidal behaviour in an individual.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

You seem to be profoundly ignorant of the facts. The fact that we don't have equal rights under the law in this country is just scratching the surface. There are still countries where homosexuality is a capital crime. In almost every country, including the U.S., anti-gay hate crimes are very common -- and I'm not talking about hate speech, I'm talking about crimes. Anti-gay violence is something every gay person has to be aware of. You constantly have to be aware of your situation, try to judge if you're safe. Gay people get beaten every day, and killed more often than you'd think. Gay people have to worry about getting fired, even losing their homes, because of the bigotry and hatred that's fostered and exacerbated by the churches.

So, you've got no compassion? Good to know where you stand. **** you.

This is the best post in the thread, so far. To add my own two cents as a homosexual, falling blood is this thread your attempt to deny that any persecution of gay people goes on, or to minimize how important this issue is? The fact of the matter is, gay people will never have what I would call rights until we can walk down the street without fear and hate toward us. You can't promise me that I can walk out of my door and be safe from hate crimes and bigotry. The fact of the matter IS gay people are treated appalingly. Looked at as horrible if we want to hold hands in public, yet that's acceptable for heterosexuals. Accused of missionizing children to the homosexual lifestyle. We get verbally abused, our rights to partnerships and marriages turned down. All this done by a party claiming to support Christian principles and family values. You tell me how this looks.

 

[fallingblood]

Let's assume for a moment that you are correct. That there are only a few churches and church organizations that focus "too much" on homosexuality, and only a few churches and church organizations that work to strip LGBT people of existing rights. If these groups are the minority, then, well, for that majority I would have to say "Silence is consent." If the majority does not actively (or at least vocally) oppose the discrimination, persecution and hatred espoused by their minority brethren, then the majority condones it. In other words, since I hear very little from the "majority" of churches that don't at least vocally oppose groups like Westboro baptist church, AFTAH, AFA, FotF, LDS and NOM as these groups spread lies, disinformation and work (as vocal "minorities") to strip LGBT people of their rights, well then, I have to assume they approve of the actions of this "minority" of groups. Since the "majority" approves of the "minority" then, well that "minority" isn't really that "minor" now is it?

Can you show that the majority approves of the minority? Silence does not mean consent. Could it not mean they simply are not aware? Is it not reasonable to assume they don't care enough about the matter, to really think about it? Is it not reasonable to assume they simply are ignorant of the matter? I mean, I've been told over and over again I'm ignorant about what is going on with the homosexual struggle. If you would accept that, then you have to accept that the majority of Christians could also be ignorant. The reason being that it simply does not effect their lives, and thus simply is not discussed. It is something that is distant, and thus not actually thought about.

There is a vocal group of heterosexuals, a minority, that would love to see all homosexuals dead. The vast majority of heterosexuals don't speak against this minority, but that does not mean they condone such actions. It means there are various factors as to why they don't.

It was that same type of logic that fueled so much hate towards Muslims after 9/11, simply because the average Muslim didn't get up and condone, publicly, that they disagreed with some radical extremists. We saw where that led.

 

[fallingblood]

This is the best post in the thread, so far. To add my own two cents as a homosexual, falling blood is this thread your attempt to deny that any persecution of gay people goes on, or to minimize how important this issue is?

Did you read a single word I said? If not, then shut your mouth, and go read it. The accusation that I'm trying to deny the persecution of homosexuals, or minimize their struggle is BS. Over and over again I have stated how I support homosexuals. This thread is in direct response to the hatred and intolerance you are spewing out.

The fact of the matter is, gay people will never have what I would call rights until we can walk down the street without fear and hate toward us. You can't promise me that I can walk out of my door and be safe from hate crimes and bigotry.

The fact is, you can't promise me, a white straight man, that I can walk out of my door and be safe from hate crimes and bigotry. I could walk out of my door, and get stabbed by a Native American (I use them simply because my city has a high population of Native Americans, its not to insinuate anything) because I'm white. That would be a hate crime. And do you know what, it happens in my city. I walk on to the reservation, to go gambling or such, with no ill-intent, and I could have a tire iron rammed through my skull, it has happened to more than one white man in my area. So please don't act as if there are anti-gay crusaders around every corner waiting to just beat you.

The fact of the matter IS gay people are treated appalingly. Looked at as horrible if we want to hold hands in public, yet that's acceptable for heterosexuals. Accused of missionizing children to the homosexual lifestyle. We get verbally abused, our rights to partnerships and marriages turned down. All this done by a party claiming to support Christian principles and family values. You tell me how this looks.

There are a lot of things that the party you're talking about does that simply are not Christian. So don't give me that. You make it seem as if all gay people are persecuted all of the time. I'm a member of the gay-straight alliance in my local area, and I know fully well that is not the case. Yes, there are many cases that homosexuals are treated sub-par, but you are grossly exaggerating.


If you want to discuss what is in this thread, then read it. Don't accuse me of crap and act as if you telling me something new. Read what has been posted.

 

[fallingblood]

So now you think it is something that must be dealt with, as opposed to something that should just be accepted as you mentioned earlier?

I don't see a major difference in the words that I used. I think you're fretting about something extremely minor that makes no real difference.

So when do you suppose a good time for dealing with this would be, since it seems you are annoyed, and have no sympathy for the people who are attempting to deal with it now?

Seriously? If that is what you get from everything I've said, there is no point to debate it. I've stated an abundant amount of times that I support homosexuals in general. That I have no problem with them, and that is a crying shame that they have to fight so much for their rights, which they should have in the first place.

 

[fallingblood]

[I
Why direct that towards homosexuals of today? That would also apply to African Americans of today. However, a few decades ago, given the opportunity, they would have strung the homosexual up right next to the dark-skin guy. At any rate, simply because there has been progress, that is no excuses to leave the job half-finished.

If you're going to quote me, do so in context. The rest of that statement explained why I said what I did. This was the reasoning, " simply because now they don't have such a long way to climb to gain the same equality." That is the part you left off, which left out an important part of that sentence.

This is not a matter of one group following the next, this is has been and is, an ongoing struggle for all groups.

Yes, but each group that gains more rights also help other groups. The more rights given to minorities, over time, help future groups that fight for their rights. Meaning, they don't have to start from square one.

I am aware that the gay rights movement is not something completely new. However, they have benefited from other civil rights movements that have succeeded. That was my point. I'm talking about now, today's society.

You go ahead and nick-pick about your "minority within the minority." But the fact remains that gays are not suppressing the inalienable of the Christians. Gays, by large, are not trying to influence the laws to suppress freedom of religion, in any way. While many of it's followers of the church, have been and continue to push for suppression of gay rights. I am have little doubt that in 1779 Thomas Jefferson faced Christian opposition, pushing to keep the death penalty. That in 1924, Christians applauded the arrest of the Society's members. That in 1962 there were Christians pushing to keep homosexuals act criminalized in Illinois. But, you'd be hard pressed to find a significant act of homosexuals pushing for suppression of the Christians right to freedom of religion.

Seriously? That is completely moot. It has never been stated my me, suggested or even remotely insinuated, anything you've just said. I've even agreed that there are Christians that persecute homosexuals. But to bring up dates in which Americans, and Christians in general were more intolerant does not prove your point. In this regard, I could care less what the opinion of people half a century believed. We are talking about today.

 

[ChristineES]

It's that they focus on homosexuality so much more than things like premarital sex for instance, which is MUCH more prevalent. I think I've read only 4% of people are openly gay, but 9 out of 10 people have had sex before marriage. And there's so many other things as well. But, it just seems there's more focus than their should be. I would say I'm lucky to be in a long-term relationship with a guy because my parents would never talk to me again if I wanted to marry a girl. But they know I'm sexually active outside of marriage and they could absolutely care less. They lived together before they were married as well.

"They" is the word I object to. It has already been established that not all Christians do that. We know that some do it. I have known a lot of Christians and very few ever even mentioned it (but who knows what they were thinking). It just never came up in conversations. And, as I said earlier, I don't recall any preacher ever preaching about it in any service I attended. There are some denominations that accept gays and even gay preachers.
Let's try and be a little generalizing in our statements (me included). :angel2:

 

[justbehappy]

I agree that some do focus on homosexuality more than other issues. Personally, I've never been to a church that taught hatred, or even mentioned homosexuality.

I grew up in a fundamentalist Christian home. The topic of homosexuality really never came up. When it did, hatred was not part of it. It was said that homosexuality was a sin, but that was the extent of it. My wives family are Bible literalists, and they believe the homosexuality is a sin; however, hatred has never been a part of it. Ignorance certainly has, but not hatred.

I am aware that some churches do focus too much on it though. But I think the extent is over exaggerated to a point. There are many instances that it seems as if the claim is that fundamentalist churches are always spreading hatred about homosexuality. It never should be the case, but I don't think it happens as much as some claim.

I think I see it more than straight people do being bisexual. Or it sticks in my brain more when I see/hear something because it bothers me to some extent.
I know that it isn't churches preaching it, but people decide things on their own.

 

[MacKinnon]

I don't see a major difference in the words that I used. I think you're fretting about something extremely minor that makes no real difference.

Well lets look at what you said again.

There will also be a level of persecution. That will never be eradicated. Today, in America, Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Blacks, Whites, straight, gay, whatever face persecution to a point. That is simply life. It may not be right, but that is something that can never be eradicated. At some point, this has to be accepted.

Now lets look at some definitions of 'accept'

–verb (used with object) 1. to take or receive (something offered); receive with approval or favor: to accept a present; to accept a proposal.

2. to agree or consent to; accede to: to accept a treaty; to accept an apology.

3. to respond or answer affirmatively to: to accept an invitation.

4. to undertake the responsibility, duties, honors, etc., of: to accept the office of president.

5. to receive or admit formally, as to a college or club.

6. to accommodate or reconcile oneself to: to accept the situation.

7. to regard as true or sound; believe: to accept a claim; to accept Catholicism.

8. to regard as normal, suitable, or usual.

And then what you said later.

Maybe, in the distant future, people will learn to be different. However, there is no foreseeable time that this will happen. Thus, at some point, it is something that must be dealt with

Now, there is a very clear difference between acknowledging that there is a problem that needs to be dealt with, and acknowledging there is a problem but just accepting it and not dealing with it.

Seriously? If that is what you get from everything I've said, there is no point to debate it. I've stated an abundant amount of times that I support homosexuals in general . That I have no problem with them, and that is a crying shame that they have to fight so much for their rights, which they should have in the first place.

And yet you at the same time have been saying that you think the ones who complain about these injustices annoy you, blow it out of proportion, and that you have no sympathy for homosexuals in general as a consequence of them complaining.

And as I've further demonstrated above, again you do not seem capable of articulating your point without contradicting yourself. This is not merely a problem of ignorance of the situation, but an inability to recognise that the way you word your sentences can alter the meaning very significantly.

 

[justbehappy]

"They" is the word I object to. It has already been established that not all Christians do that. We know that some do it. I have known a lot of Christians and very few ever even mentioned it (but who knows what they were thinking). It just never came up in conversations. And, as I said earlier, I don't recall any preacher ever preaching about it in any service I attended. There are some denominations that accept gays and even gay preachers.
Let's try and be a little generalizing in our statements (me included). :angel2:

I'm sorry, I didn't mean "they" the way you took it. I was actually talking about Christians who actively preach about sins or try to convert people, etc.

 

[ChristineES]

I'm sorry, I didn't mean "they" the way you took it. I was actually talking about Christians who actively preach about sins or try to convert people, etc.

That's all right, I am not mad or anything. I just get a over sensitive because I keep seeing Christians be generalized (or anyone else, for that matter)

 

[justbehappy]

That's all right, I am not mad or anything. I just get a over sensitive because I keep seeing Christians be generalized (or anyone else, for that matter)

I agree, and I am glad that most Christian have become more excepting of it (at least respectful). Just the one thing I always fail to understand is why premarital sex (by a lot of Christians, not all) is completely overlooked and barely sinful to some, but homosexuality is a great sin.

 

[ChristineES]

I agree, and I am glad that most Christian have become more excepting of it (at least respectful). Just the one thing I always fail to understand is why premarital sex (by a lot of Christians, not all) is completely overlooked and barely sinful to some, but homosexuality is a great sin.

Even some Christians wonder that. I think it is because these Christians (who ignore it) have done it and don't want to condemn themselves. They only condemn things that have nothing to do with them. I hate that kind of thinking.

 

[MacKinnon]

I think 'They', 'Them', 'Those' would better substituted with 'some but not all'