Do Christians really overly persecute homosexuals?

[fallingblood]

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.

To take me out of context, and portray what I said in a way that it was not intended simply is not a way to debate. Simply, because it misrepresents what I stated, turning it into something different, something I didn't say.

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.

I have to say I am glad of the advances that have come because of the civil rights movements. I think everyone benefits from the equality of other groups.

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?

I said it was moot as it is not dealing with what we are talking about, the current struggle of 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.

I don't know if it puts things in context though. If anything, it is showing the vast improvements we seen in the treatment of homosexuals.

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 the case then, I appreciate your efforts.

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

I know generally what is happening. I admit, that to a point, I am ignorant of what is going on. Much of that is because the majority of what I hear about the homosexual struggle are from those who, in my opinion, are blowing it out of proportion by claiming the whole world is out to get them, and the like. They don't paint a very accurate portrayal.

 

[Jeremiah]

To take me out of context, and portray what I said in a way that it was not intended simply is not a way to debate. Simply, because it misrepresents what I stated, turning it into something different, something I didn't say.
I have to say I am glad of the advances that have come because of the civil rights movements. I think everyone benefits from the equality of other groups.
I said it was moot as it is not dealing with what we are talking about, the current struggle of homosexuals.
I don't know if it puts things in context though. If anything, it is showing the vast improvements we seen in the treatment of homosexuals.
In the case then, I appreciate your efforts.
I know generally what is happening. I admit, that to a point, I am ignorant of what is going on. Much of that is because the majority of what I hear about the homosexual struggle are from those who, in my opinion, are blowing it out of proportion by claiming the whole world is out to get them, and the like. They don't paint a very accurate portrayal.

I know generally what is happening. I admit, that to a point, I am ignorant of what is going on. Much of that is because the majority of what I hear about the homosexual struggle are from those who, in my opinion, are blowing it out of proportion by claiming the whole world is out to get them, and the like. They don't paint a very accurate portrayal.

"They don't paint a very accurate portrayal."

And you don't paint a very accurate picture of homosexuals. You are taking them out of context, blowing things out of proportion and misrepresenting what they say. You are nothing but a hypocrite.

 

[fallingblood]

"They don't paint a very accurate portrayal."

And you don't paint a very accurate picture of homosexuals. You are taking them out of context, blowing things out of proportion and misrepresenting what they say. You are nothing but a hypocrite.

How? Because I'm speaking of a specific group, and not of homosexuals in general?

 

[waitasec]

I have the belief that homosexuality is wrong. I do not persecute them in any way however. I have several gay friends. I do not try and talk them out of it. They know that I do not condone it though. My gay friends are treated the same as my straight friends. If a topic comes up, we discuss it and move on. I try to be an example for everyone in my life even though I often come up short. There is no need to judge people for any actions or behaviors in a Christian sense. Judgment is left for God when the time comes.

"My gay friends are treated the same as my straight friends."

how can you say they are treated the same if you don't accept your gay friends?
i would think twice before calling someone your friend if you don't accept them for who they are

"There is no need to judge people for any actions or behaviors in a Christian sense."

would you say that you are against same sex marriages?
have you voted against their equal rights...

 

[Jeremiah]

How? Because I'm speaking of a specific group, and not of homosexuals in general?

O, am I very aware of your special little clause, which you think justifies your position. But I am not going to play ring around the rosy with you. As I told you, I don't really care about your arguments.

You continue to say they are blowing things out of proportion. But how do you know that? Did you double check on what you heard?

Here, if you really have an interest and what to be better informed then here is some links I have run across over time.

Sexual Prejudice: Understanding Homophobia and Heterosexism

Beyond Homophobia » Sexual Prejudice

Studies Discover Clues to the Roots of Homophobia

http://www.davidmyers.org/davidmyers/assets/Sex-Orient-9e.pdf

http://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/bitstream/1842/2354/1/Mundell%20dissertation.pdf

I am not going to argue with you endlessly Mr.Blood, that is not a very effective means of resolving preconceived notion about homosexuals. But if you are going to continue to debate the homosexual controversy, then you should at least educate yourself on it. Don't you think so? I am sure you would agree, you really can't come to a proper understanding without some education.

Edit* Forgot one: http://epiphenom.fieldofscience.com/2009/03/whats-connection-between-religion-and.html

 

[fallingblood]

O, am I very aware of your special little clause, which you think justifies your position. But I am not going to play ring around the rosy with you. As I told you, I don't really care about your arguments.

Thus it is pointless to even continue with you. If you don't care about the arguments I've posted, then it is no wonder you aren't understanding what I'm saying, as you simply don't care. From the looks of it, you clearly aren't even looking at the majority of which I've said. So there is no need t continue with you. If you decide to actually have a discussion on this, I'm open to it. But if you are just going to ignore what I say, then that's your problem.

 

[fallingblood]

I am not going to argue with you endlessly Mr.Blood, that is not a very effective means of resolving preconceived notion about homosexuals. But if you are going to continue to debate the homosexual controversy, then you should at least educate yourself on it. Don't you think so? I am sure you would agree, you really can't come to a proper understanding without some education.

I will take the time to look at the sites you posted. But I think it must be understood that I'm not debating against homosexuality. I accept homosexuality and have no problem with it. I simply have a problem with a specific group (I'm assuming it is a minority) who, in my opinion, are making the problem something it isn't. To put it simply, the problem they are claiming is that the whole world is out to get them.

 

[Misty]

I will take the time to look at the sites you posted. But I think it must be understood that I'm not debating against homosexuality. I accept homosexuality and have no problem with it. I simply have a problem with a specific group (I'm assuming it is a minority) who, in my opinion, are making the problem something it isn't. To put it simply, the problem they are claiming is that the whole world is out to get them.

I think descrimating against gays is as bad as racism.

 

[fallingblood]

how can you say they are treated the same if you don't accept your gay friends?
i would think twice before calling someone your friend if you don't accept them for who they are

He said that he did not condone the behavior. We do not have to condone everything that our friends do. I had one friend who went around and slept with a number of different women. He ended up having a couple of children from that. I don't condone the behavior, and he knows it. But that doesn't mean he isn't my friend. During high school, the vast majority of my friends would get drunk from time to time. I don't condone underage drinking, but that doesn't mean they weren't my friends. There are a lot of behaviors that my friends have that I don't condone. My own brother drinks (he's under age) and smokes. I condone neither one of those acts, but I still love him.

Not condoning something does not mean that one will treat those people differently. With the example of my brother, I treat him the same way I did before he took up those behaviors. They give me something more to joke about, but that's all. As for the examples of my friends, I treat them like friends.

You are looking more into this than there really is.

 

[waitasec]

He said that he did not condone the behavior. We do not have to condone everything that our friends do.

we condone our friends for who they are
this word "lifestyle" or "behavior" does nothing but to suggest this a choice, when in fact it is not.

 

[fallingblood]

I think descrimating against gays is as bad as racism.

I agree. Racism is just discriminating against a different group (I don't want to say another race as race is just a biological myth).

 

[fallingblood]

we condone our friends for who they are
this word "lifestyle" or "behavior" does nothing but to suggest this a choice, when in fact it is not.

It may suggest it, to a point, but you can't assume that anyone who uses the word behavior or lifestyle, when in reference to homosexuality, means they believe it is a choice.

Personally, I know it is not a choice. I've seen the studies done on the subject. I believe that it has been shown beyond a doubt that it is not a choice, that people are born as either homosexuals or heterosexuals.

I accept my friends for who they are. I don't condone all of their actions though.

 

[Sunstone]

I accept my friends for who they are. I don't condone all of their actions though.

In what sense can you accept people as they are without condoning their actions?

 

[waitasec]

It may suggest it, to a point, but you can't assume that anyone who uses the word behavior or lifestyle, when in reference to homosexuality, means they believe it is a choice.

Personally, I know it is not a choice. I've seen the studies done on the subject. I believe that it has been shown beyond a doubt that it is not a choice, that people are born as either homosexuals or heterosexuals.

I accept my friends for who they are. I don't condone all of their actions though.

it is a preposterous notion to even say to someone "i do not like you because of the color of your skin", why would this be any different?

the belief that it is a choice gives the green light for judgment and bigotry
all based on fear. the action is based on who they are not what they choose to do...

 

[dawny0826]

I keep hearing about how horrible Christians are for persecuting homosexuals. That Christians hate homosexuals, and that Christians view homosexuals as abominations. However, is that really the case?

I believe that it is only a minority of Christians who view homosexuals as abominations. I would admit that many do believe that homosexuality is a sin, but that is far from being an abomination.

I think, Americans specifically, use the word "persecution" in too extreme a sense, when describing Christian opposition to bgltq civil rights. I don't equate discrimination and persecution to be one and the same.

I see alot of hypocrisy. You can't expect people to foresake their own beliefs to support something that they believe is wrong. Equally, you can't fault people for pursuing that which they feel is fair and just. These communities are fighting for legal rights they don't yet have. It's a process. There's going to be outcry from those that oppose the change and feel threatened by the change - even if they're ridiculous for opposing and feeling threatened. These people, no matter how right or wrong they may be, have the right to fight against that which they oppose.

If you're going to accuse Christians of persecuting gays - accept that gays also persecute Christians, if your'e going by the textbook definition of persecution.

If I was with a woman right now, it's incredibly unlikely that I'd have to fear being dragged out of my home and hauled off to jail for my choices. BGLTQs are not being dragged into court rooms by the masses and tried for crimes. They're not being assembled in town squares and murdered in numbers.

If gbltqs weren't at all able to live productive lives alongside the people that they love, live with and/or sleep with - my thoughts on this subject would be different.

I'm not denying the unfair obstruction of civil liberties for these Americans - but the very fact that we can celebrate strides made towards the advancement of civil liberties for these people, says something significant.

If you want to talk about true persecution, go talk to an opressed woman in a third world country or a homesexual in a predominately Muslim country (no offense meant to Muslims).

When people are physically harmed and have no legal recourse - that's when the word "persecution" comes into play, in my opinion.

 

[waitasec]

I think, Americans specifically, use the word "persecution" in too extreme a sense, when describing Christian opposition to bgltq civil rights. I don't equate discrimination and persecution to be one and the same.

I see alot of hypocrisy. You can't expect people to foresake their own beliefs to support something that they believe is wrong. Equally, you can't fault people for pursuing that which they feel is fair and just. These communities are fighting for legal rights that don't yet have. It's a process. There's going to be outcry from those that oppose the change and feel threatened by the change - even if they're ridiculous for opposing and feeling threatened. These people, no matter how right or wrong they may be, have the right to fight against that which they oppose.

If you're going to accuse Christians of persecuting gays - accept that gays also persecute Christians, if your'e going by the textbook definition of persecution.

If I was with a woman right now, it's incredibly unlikely that I'd have to fear being dragged out of my home and hauled off to jail for my choices. BGLTQs are not being dragged into court rooms by the masses and tried for crimes. They're not being assembled in town squares and murdered in numbers.

If gbltqs weren't at all able to live productive lives alongside the people that they love, live with and/or sleep with - my thoughts on this subject would be different.

I'm not denying the unfair obstruction of civil liberties for these Americans - but the very fact that we can celebrate strides made towards the advancement of civil liberties for these people, says something significant.

If you want to talk about true persecution, go talk to an opressed woman in a third world country or a homsexual in a predominately Muslim country (no offense meant to Muslims).

When people are physically harmed and have no legal recourse - that's when the world "persecution" comes into play, in my opinion.

it is with this same reasoning slavery was condoned by the religious right
and now the religious right are persecuting same sex couples
by actually hiding behind the ridiculous notion that equal rights for same sex marriages is something to be voted on, sound familiar?

btw, being persecuted means being
mistreated, victimized, offended and wronged
are we pussyfooting around what the word means or how people are being judged for being who they are

 

[dawny0826]

it is with this same reasoning slavery was condoned by the religious right
and now the religious right are persecuting same sex couples
by actually hiding behind the ridiculous notion that equal rights for same sex marriages is something to be voted on, sound familiar?

btw, being persecuted means being
mistreated, victimized, offended and wronged
are we pussyfooting around what the word means or how people are being judged for being who they are

I know the definition of persecution. I simply believe that we're using the term too harshly. If homesexuals WERE NOT making strides at all to perserve and/or gain civil rights - then I'd think differently. We have the right to opposition.

Respectfully, people are pushing for legal rights that they do not presently have. How is this something that shouldn't be voted on. If marriage is to be legally redefined - why wouldn't this be something to vote on? Are you insinuating that ONLY homosexuals have the right to define marriage?

 

[fallingblood]

it is a preposterous notion to even say to someone "i do not like you because of the color of your skin", why would this be any different?

the belief that it is a choice gives the green light for judgment and bigotry
all based on fear. the action is based on who they are not what they choose to do...

I never said it would be different. I even stated that I saw racism and discrimination of homosexuals to be similar. I make very little distinction, as they are both prejudices. So I'm not sure where you are going with this.

Yes, there are people out there who do believe that way, that just because someone is different, it's alright to dislike them, but I don't think that has come into play in this discussion.

I don't think anyone has said that homosexuality is a choice in this discussion. I've stated the exact opposite. I know there are people out there who believe so, but I didn't think it was an issue in this current discussion.

I'm just kind of confused of where this is going. The statement you quoted of mine dealt with neither.

 

[fallingblood]

In what sense can you accept people as they are without condoning their actions?

This is the definition of condone I'm using: approve or sanction (something), esp. with reluctance
or
accept and allow (behavior that is considered morally wrong or offensive) to continue

One can accept something, and at the same time not condone it. I don't approve of smoking and underage drinking. That doesn't mean that I don't accept my brother though.

The second definition, I think, makes it quite easy. Condoning is two parts. First, the act has to be accepted. The second part is allowing the act to continue. I accept that my brother smokes and drinks underage. I don't allow it to happen though (as in, I don't allow him to smoke in my property (car, house, etc). I don't buy him alcohol, I don't offer him alcohol, etc. If he's drinking, it's not in my control).

We can use this with the topic of homosexuality. This is now hypothetical, as I'm not voicing my beliefs here. I could accept a homosexual as they are. But that does not mean that I approve of who they sleep with. Or, I can accept that they are homosexual, but not allow that person to have sex in my home. On a side note, this can even stretch to heterosexual people. I can accept that my brother is having sex, but that does not I approve of who he is having sex with.

Really, the two, accepting someone, but not condoning what they do, can go hand in hand.

 

[Nerthus]

I could accept a homosexual as they are. But that does not mean that I approve of who they sleep with. Or, I can accept that they are homosexual, but not allow that person to have sex in my home. On a side note, this can even stretch to heterosexual people. I can accept that my brother is having sex, but that does not I approve of who he is having sex with.

Why does it matter to you what two people get up to? Why make a deal over whether someone is having sex with a member of the same or opposite sex?

When I see people, even my friends and family, their sex life never crosses my mind, so why on earth it should cross your I don't know.