Do Christians really overly persecute homosexuals?

[gzusfrk]

The church I attend preaches more on adultery than homosexual, It's more of a problem.

 

[justbehappy]

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.

Eh I don't think it's that.. I think it's a personal bias that goes farther than religion. Because most religious people know that God would want you to respect and not hate. So people that hate must have a personal reason to go against God on that.

 

[ChristineES]

Eh I don't think it's that.. I think it's a personal bias that goes farther than religion. Because most religious people know that God would want you to respect and not hate. So people that hate must have a personal reason to go against God on that.

Didn't think of that. Christians are not supposed to judge and they are supposed to have mercy. I guess I sometimes assume that most of them are like that.

 

[no-body]

"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...




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.

[/font]

Suicidal behaviors in homosexual and bisexual male... [Crisis. 1997] - PubMed result

:clap bravo, I haven't seen so much conservative spin in a while. let's post the actual article behind these "statistics"

Bill Maier, a psychologist with Focus on the Family, rejects the "anti-gay" explanation.

"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.

Dr. Mark Goulston, who sits on the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, said homosexuals are more likely to be lonely, particularly when their families reject them. By extension, it has been argued that painfully conscious of their weirdness and desperate for acceptance of their proclivity, homosexuals develop manic depressive fluctuations, including euphoria during a homosexual relationship and deep troughs when they are alone.

Because San Fransisco is a gay utopia that shields homosexuals from the prejudiced of the world and family and on every street corner there are shady individuals wrapped in trench coats ready to lure and endorse minors into the homosexual lifestyle to make sure san fran stays all gay.

Wiping a tear of laughter away from my eye at "psychologist with focus on family" by the way

 

[fallingblood]

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.

What you've demonstrated is that you can take a word choice and make it, that means something quite similar, and make it into something it is not. If it makes you happy, I will retract the second statement and replace it with deal with the situation. I see very little difference anyway.

 

[Duck]

What you've demonstrated is that you can take a word choice and make it, that means something quite similar, and make it into something it is not. If it makes you happy, I will retract the second statement and replace it with deal with the situation. I see very little difference anyway.

But in dealing with the situation there will be a number of homosexuals that "blow it out of proportion" or "whine" about the situation. Cause, well, in order for change to happen one has to call attention to the situation, in some circumstances this is "whining".

 

[Autodidact]

I think it's telling when a white heterosexual male, a person who rarely if ever experiences any discrimination, while benefiting from generations of it, thinks the problem with discrimination that he doesn't experience is that the people who do complain about it too much.

Don't you?

 

[fallingblood]

I think it's telling when a white heterosexual male, a person who rarely if ever experiences any discrimination, while benefiting from generations of it, thinks the problem with discrimination that he doesn't experience is that the people who do complain about it too much.

Don't you?

If that is directed towards me, then there really isn't anything telling about it. My family has faced persecutions for generations. The only reason my ancestors moved to the United States is because they faced persecution back home, and felt forced to move here. My family, as far as I know, have never directly benefited from the persecution of others.

I myself, have faced discrimination quite often. Part of it has been my religious views. Part of it has been due to the fact that for a part of my life people thought I was a Native American because I had long black hair and was quite dark (due to my mother's family being descendants of Arabs). Through my high school career, I was thought to be gay, and was treated as such by various groups (this I'm still not sure how it came about, as I dated, girls, throughout high school. Yet, even one of the individuals I dated thought I was gay). I know how it feels to be discriminated against. My plight has not been equal to that of homosexuals, or Native Americans, or many of the other minorities that I either belonged to or others grouped me with, simply because I haven't had to face the discrimination to it's fullest. Partly because I moved a lot and got new starts, partly because, in the cases of being considered a Native American or a homosexual, they simply weren't true and it soon became apparent they weren't, or because I had the ability to change my religious convictions. So I am not equating what I've gone through with what homosexuals are going through. But I am stating I do know what being persecuted feels like, I know what it feels to be discriminated against.

 

[MacKinnon]

What you've demonstrated is that you can take a word choice and make it, that means something quite similar, and make it into something it is not. If it makes you happy, I will retract the second statement and replace it with deal with the situation. I see very little difference anyway.

I've already posted a clear definition of the word 'accept'. If you are still unable to understand that when you say

It may not be right, but that is something that can never be eradicated. At some point, this has to be accepted.

It implies you think we should do nothing about persecution.

and when you said

Thus, at some point, it is something that must be dealt with

It implies you think we should do something about persecution

there is a clear difference. I don't particularly care which of these positions you adopt, but I'd recommend that you pick one and be consistent with your use of language so that it reflects your position clearly, and accurately.

 

[Kathryn]

Look, ANY form or level of persecution and prejudice should be pushed back at and fought. Big movements start small. Take the old standby - Nazi Germany - as an example. As the great Martin Niemoller said so succinctly:

"THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

THEN THEY CAME for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

THEN THEY CAME for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up."

I've experienced discrimination and prejudice on several different fronts in my lifetime, and probably will experience it again before it's all said and done. I think most people have, even white protestant males. I think we all know how it feels to be judged harshly and superficially, to be rejected, to be an outcast.

We should have ZERO TOLERANCE for harsh, prejudicial and systematic discrimination against ANY group of individuals, whether we agree with their lifestyle or beliefs or not - as long as they are not infringing on the rights of others to freely choose their own lifestyles or beliefs.

 

[fallingblood]

I've already posted a clear definition of the word 'accept'. If you are still unable to understand that when you say



It implies you think we should do nothing about persecution.

and when you said



It implies you think we should do something about persecution

there is a clear difference. I don't particularly care which of these positions you adopt, but I'd recommend that you pick one and be consistent with your use of language so that it reflects your position clearly, and accurately.

Accepting something does not mean you don't do anything about it. I accept that there is persecution in the world. It does not mean that I don't do anything about it. I accept that there will always be persecution in the world, that doesn't mean I don't do anything about it.

I've stated my position. Maybe my word choice wasn't the best in parts, but I have gone and clarified what I meant. So I don't see why you are focusing on such a small issue that has been clarified.

 

[fallingblood]

Look, ANY form or level of persecution and prejudice should be pushed back at and fought. Big movements start small. Take the old standby - Nazi Germany - as an example. As the great Martin Niemoller said so succinctly:

"THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

THEN THEY CAME for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

THEN THEY CAME for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up."

I've experienced discrimination and prejudice on several different fronts in my lifetime, and probably will experience it again before it's all said and done. I think most people have, even white protestant males. I think we all know how it feels to be judged harshly and superficially, to be rejected, to be an outcast.

We should have ZERO TOLERANCE for harsh, prejudicial and systematic discrimination against ANY group of individuals, whether we agree with their lifestyle or beliefs or not - as long as they are not infringing on the rights of others to freely choose their own lifestyles or beliefs.

I completely agree. Something does have to be done about persecution.

At the same time though, I think people have to accept that there will be a level of discrimination that simply can not be eradicated. In the U.S., people are equal, but some are more equal than others.

I think the amount that is pushed back though, should be relative to that in which is being pushed. I think of it similar to self-defense. If someone punches me in the face, I don't have the right to cut his head off. That would be going massively overboard, and very counter-productive in the end.

 

[Kathryn]

fallingblood, I disagree. We should rage against the machine.

When discrimination is directed at me, or my kids, it's infuriating and I simply will not tolerate it - not in any amount. Usually when we see indication of discrimination, it's like seeing the tip of an iceburg. When a person is actually willing and motivated to ACT OUT their prejudices, I can only imagine how deep and pervasive that prejudice is - and how permeated their home and their world is.

However, I do believe that the best weapon against discrimination is not violence, it's not whining, it's not pettiness. I believe the best weapon is living a life that DISPROVES the biases and fears of others.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

fallingblood, I disagree. We should rage against the machine.

When discrimination is directed at me, or my kids, it's infuriating and I simply will not tolerate it - not in any amount. Usually when we see indication of discrimination, it's like seeing the tip of an iceburg. When a person is actually willing and motivated to ACT OUT their prejudices, I can only imagine how deep and pervasive that prejudice is - and how permeated their home and their world is.

However, I do believe that the best weapon against discrimination is not violence, it's not whining, it's not pettiness. I believe the best weapon is living a life that DISPROVES the biases and fears of others.

:clap

*standing ovation*

 

[Jeremiah]

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.
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.

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.

"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."

O stop your bellyaching about context, it is getting old and I am sick of hearing it. I know it is annoying and frustrating but it is part of life and really no big deal. Beside, I not only quoted you in full, at the top my post (which is my habit), I also addressed the part you think explains it a few lines lower. I most certainly did not take you out of context.

"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. "

Yes, it an on going struggle for the benefit of all. And you should be glad to be able to stand on the shoulders of the past effort of homosexuals that helped make civil rights what they are today. Efforts that go back even further then the civil rights movement.

"That is completely moot."

So suddenly history is moot? Because just not to long ago, you where carrying on about how bad the women and blacks had it back ago. But now that it gets to gay history it is suddenly 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."

In that paragraph, I am not suggesting you insinuated anything. I just thought you need a quick history lesson and needed to put things into context.

"But to bring up dates in which Americans, and Christians in general were more intolerant does not prove your point."

Well, my point was to give you a very quick, and very limited rundown of history. So, yes it does prove my point, as I was not trying to combat your arguments (I don't really care about your arguments), I was trying to combat your ignorance.

"In this regard, I could care less what the opinion of people half a century believed."

You'll never understand today without understanding the past.

Tell me: Do you suppose that when Thomas Jefferson changed the law to castration and mutilation for homosexual acts instead of death; that there were Christians there, waving their Bible, hollering "It says they should be put to death. God commands it"? I'd imagine it probably went something like that; as humans don't really change, we get better at governing ourselves, but the human being, itself, does not really change.

Also, to note: It was not the black's right movement or the women's right movement, that have lessen the intolerance, of homosexuals, within Christians, it was and is, primarily by the efforts of homosexuals and understanding Christians. It is the past and continued efforts of homosexuals and members within the church, that have had the most significant impact of acceptance within the Christian community.

"We are talking about today."

I'll talk about whenever I want, but let's face it, you don't really know what is happening today either.

 

[Autodidact]

Right on Kathryn!

I strongly agree that discrimination hurts everyone, and equality benefits everyone.

 

[ChristineES]

I have heard stories about discrimination to guys that made my stomach hurt- such as beating people up. On a news shows 20 years ago, there was a gay couple- one of them was dying and the family would not let his partner in to see him (the man was unconscious)I think gays have a right to complain about things like that. Kathryn made an important statement: discrimination hurts everyone.

 

[Kathryn]

I have heard stories about discrimination to guys that made my stomach hurt- such as beating people up. On a news shows 20 years ago, there was a gay couple- one of them was dying and the family would not let his partner in to see him (the man was unconscious)I think gays have a right to complain about things like that. Kathryn made an important statement: discrimination hurts everyone.

Amen, Christine. I mean, where is the basic human decency, human kindness, and empathy?

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Sheeze, it's really not that hard to figure things out if you apply that principle!

 

[MacKinnon]

Just to sum up my concerns about this subject before leaving it behind.

The original question was

Do christians really overly persecute homosexuals?

There is no way to overdo persecution. There is no way to underdo persecution. People persecute, or they do not.

Now, a better question would have been. Do christians persecute homosexuals? Some have answered yes. A better answer would be some, but not all christians persecute homosexuals. A more expanded answer would be some, but not everyone persecutes homosexuals.

I do not accept that a person can blow persecution out of proportion. If someone is being persecuted, they must do what they can to make people aware of it and make it stop.

There has been some discussion about what rights a homosexual has/does not have/ has had removed in some states in the USA. The way a homosexual is regarded globally however, is generally not particularly well. They are denied civil liberties. They are open to attack physically and verbally, they may be regarded as social outcasts by even their own family, and in Iran they may even be executed. They are not widely respected as individuals. In my country, even though they can have something called a civil partnership, and may not be as denigrated as in others, they are still not allowed to donate blood, even to save a family member, even if their blood test comes out clean.

Homosexuals are not a new addition to the human race. They are not confined to one location, nationality or creed or sex. Men and Women homosexuals face the same issues.

As has already been said, they are wanting to have the same rights that should be enjoyed by everyone, regardless of race, sex, sexuality, nationality, creed. They want to be respected as human beings.

Of course, they are not the only people in the history of human events to be denied such rights. They may not be the last either.

However, if nobody else will stick up for you. Even if they don't agree with what is happening to you, they may as well support what is happening to you. They are not helping you. And without that help, it makes it a lot harder for you to win that struggle. And that means you have to shout louder, more often, in more places and to more people. Nobody likes to hear complaining. But also, nobody likes to have to complain.

Humankind is capable of moving past this. We have seen how cruel the minority can be when the majority adopt an apathetic, mute acceptance of it.

In short, if somebody is being mistreated and you do not like it, and also do not speak up for them and against their mistreatment then you are useless in this struggle that all of mankind shares.

 

[fallingblood]

fallingblood, I disagree. We should rage against the machine.

When discrimination is directed at me, or my kids, it's infuriating and I simply will not tolerate it - not in any amount. Usually when we see indication of discrimination, it's like seeing the tip of an iceburg. When a person is actually willing and motivated to ACT OUT their prejudices, I can only imagine how deep and pervasive that prejudice is - and how permeated their home and their world is.

However, I do believe that the best weapon against discrimination is not violence, it's not whining, it's not pettiness. I believe the best weapon is living a life that DISPROVES the biases and fears of others.

I can agree with that. I wouldn't suggest that if someone is be discriminated against, that they should do nothing about it. If they do, it could get worse. At the same time, I think it needs to be accepted that, to a level, it will always be there. I believe it is a struggle that is never ending.

At some point though, I do think pushing back can go to far. I think Malcolm X is a good example. He went overboard to a point. The way he went overboard is by the prejudice he had against white men. He even admits that he went overboard on this as well. He believed that all white people were evil. By doing so, he ignored all of the white people who wanted to help, but didn't know how to. Later on, he realized this.