Has anyone else noticed this discrepancy?

[Zorro1227]

For most of us as children we are taught by our parents, teachers, pastors, and leaders that love is an unconditional emotion. If two people are in love with one another...why should their outward extremities prevent them from being "allowed" to love? We have for the most part (although there are still and will always be some bigots out there) accepting of interracial relationships, so why are we still so close minded to the thought of homosexual relationships?

In my opinion most of society is extremely hypocritical in this matter. So my question is mainly to religious heterosexuals (however, anyone can chime in). How would you like it if the majority of the population was made up of homosexuals and you were faced with the hatred from people because you were not a part of the majority?

 

[*Anne*]

That love is unconditional is a whole different discussion.

But yes, I get what you're saying here. I've posed that question to some people too. "Think you as a straight person could force yourself to love a person of the same sex, or reject the person you currently love, just because society says you should?" I don't get much of an answer though.

 

[Zorro1227]

That love is unconditional is a whole different discussion.

But yes, I get what you're saying here. I've posed that question to some people too. "Think you as a straight person could force yourself to love a person of the same sex, or reject the person you currently love, just because society says you should?" I don't get much of an answer though.

yes it is! I just kind of had a few points to make in the same post. Yes, I'm honestly not expecting much of an anwser. Thank you for your reply!

 

[Eliot Wild]

So my question is mainly to religious heterosexuals (however, anyone can chime in). How would you like it if the majority of the population was made up of homosexuals and you were faced with the hatred from people because you were not a part of the majority?

This is a common problem in the area of the country where I live, at least for me it is. In my hometown Christians are the majority, mainly protestant Christians, such as Baptists, Methodists and Church of Christ practitioners. The problem arises when they attempt to use their sheer numbers as a blunt political force with total disregard for the personal rights and beliefs of others.

For example, I've discussed it on RF before, the town where I live has "blue laws" enacted by the Chritian majority. These laws make it illegal to buy or sell alcohol on Sundays. I love wine and drink it just about every evening with dinner. My thinking is this, if one doesn't want to drink wine or other alcholic beverages because of religious beliefs or whatever, then don't. But I am outraged that they use their majority as a political weapon to force their beliefs on me and to run roughshod over what I believe to be my personal liberties.

Now, I realize this is a very "shallow" example, at least comparitively speaking. I can only imagine what it would be like to be told who I could and couldn't fall in love with. I get frustrated everytime I forget to buy wine on Saturday night and then run out on Sunday. I imagine that it must feel like political and social terrorism to stare constantly down the barrel of religious bigotry because of one's sexual orientation.

 

[AxisMundi]

For most of us as children we are taught by our parents, teachers, pastors, and leaders that love is an unconditional emotion. If two people are in love with one another...why should their outward extremities prevent them from being "allowed" to love? We have for the most part (although there are still and will always be some bigots out there) accepting of interracial relationships, so why are we still so close minded to the thought of homosexual relationships?

In my opinion most of society is extremely hypocritical in this matter. So my question is mainly to religious heterosexuals (however, anyone can chime in). How would you like it if the majority of the population was made up of homosexuals and you were faced with the hatred from people because you were not a part of the majority?

Homosexuality attacks different people diferently, but it does so quite deeply.

It can attack people's religious beliefs and/or the very sexual identity of the unsure.

Throw in the heavy use of human sexuality by the Abrahamics as a powerbase control device, and we have a recipe for concrete hatred, and also results in people thinking that love between adults is a matter of genetalia, and not the heart.

 

[bobhikes]

I would agree with the first poster, I don't believe everyone agrees that love is unconditional.

For me their are many types of love none of them are unconditional.

As to homosexual relationships, I believe most people with the exception of the bigots and extreme religious are now accepting as can be seen by all the coming out of various people and there success in the world even after coming out.

The issue for me and most is homosexual marriages. I believe marriage to be the providence of heterosexual couples.

If I did believe in unconditional love or true love it would exist beyond all boundries including marriage. So some one with unconditional love would not need to be married.

 

[Ravishing Witch]

For most of us as children we are taught by our parents, teachers, pastors, and leaders that love is an unconditional emotion. If two people are in love with one another...why should their outward extremities prevent them from being "allowed" to love? We have for the most part (although there are still and will always be some bigots out there) accepting of interracial relationships, so why are we still so close minded to the thought of homosexual relationships?

In my opinion most of society is extremely hypocritical in this matter. So my question is mainly to religious heterosexuals (however, anyone can chime in). How would you like it if the majority of the population was made up of homosexuals and you were faced with the hatred from people because you were not a part of the majority?

I don't believe it's a question of them being allowed to love or not, it's more of a "I don't want to see it" mindset. Personally, I could care less if someone is gay or not, that is their business, not mine. Though you don't see me running around celebrating my sexual preference. (**dreams of parades with funnel cake and large amounts of cotton candy**) It isn't just the homosexuals that people don't want to see being openly affectionate, it's anyone. I once kissed my boyfriend in the parking lot of the place I worked at, someone complained to management and the next day I was let go . I honestly believe that it's more that people don't like the public display of homosexuality, than of the act itself. "Don't ask, don't tell" ring any bells?!?!

And now to get to your question. I am already hated for not being a part of the majority, just in a different way. My religion is largely frowned upon where I'm from, so any display of it (bumper stickers, necklaces, etc.) fuels buckets of spewed hatred.

 

[tarasan]

For most of us as children we are taught by our parents, teachers, pastors, and leaders that love is an unconditional emotion. If two people are in love with one another...why should their outward extremities prevent them from being "allowed" to love? We have for the most part (although there are still and will always be some bigots out there) accepting of interracial relationships, so why are we still so close minded to the thought of homosexual relationships?

In my opinion most of society is extremely hypocritical in this matter. So my question is mainly to religious heterosexuals (however, anyone can chime in). How would you like it if the majority of the population was made up of homosexuals and you were faced with the hatred from people because you were not a part of the majority?

firstly id be worried if the majority of people where homosexuals eeep reproduction issues?

and why is this question relevant, for the fundies it isnt important that your a minority they would still yell and attack you even if you were the majority, teh fact is that in their eyes you are doing something moraly wrong.

 

[EverChanging]

It seems to me that we in the West have very distorted notions of sexuality, especially in conservative religious circles. If we're not repressing and denying it, we're exploiting it and abusing it. Some people simply cannot fathom that two people of the same sex can deeply love and care about each other, whether or not they are having sex. I have a particular friend of the same sex with which I have a deep relationship, and it's not exactly straight, yet we have never had sex or otherwise engaged in sexual practices together. Love and sex can be combined, but they are not the same.

In reality, I think most people have some type of sexual fantasy or inclination that is not socially acceptable, not just homosexuals or bisexuals. As long as one's sexual practices aren't harming self or others, as long as they are between consenting adults, it's no one else's business. Animals are sexual, and humans are animals. There is no shame in that.

It is often pointed out that homosexuals celebrate their sexuality in public. Heteros normally don't, so why should homosexuals? The point is that LGBT people have been oppressed and filled with guilt and shame all around the world for far, far too long. It is liberating to embrace and yes, even celebrate our sexuality after hiding in guilt and shame and fear for so long.

Many heterosexuals, too, experience this shame and guilt, perhaps sometimes just as strongly, and they, too, should affirm and celebrate their sexuality should they feel inclined, if that enriches them.

Homophobia, I believe, is a symptom of sexual repression in general. It is probably quite uncomfortable for a homophobic heterosexual who is ashamed of his/her own sexuality to see someone else affirming it openly, especially when it is taboo.

 

[Valjean]

More than homosexuality, how about the other "Christian" social values like loving your neighbor, your enemies, returning good for evil, disdaining wealth, &c.
Our society reflects these pretty poorly.

 

[dust1n]

For most of us as children we are taught by our parents, teachers, pastors, and leaders that love is an unconditional emotion. If two people are in love with one another...why should their outward extremities prevent them from being "allowed" to love?

Hell no!

We have for the most part (although there are still and will always be some bigots out there) accepting of interracial relationships, so why are we still so close minded to the thought of homosexual relationships?

Indoctrination.

In my opinion most of society is extremely hypocritical in this matter. So my question is mainly to religious heterosexuals (however, anyone can chime in). How would you like it if the majority of the population was made up of homosexuals and you were faced with the hatred from people because you were not a part of the majority?

The thing I have with this problem is that a religious/homosexual duality is not that only one that exists. Parents and their children who find mates who are of different races, standards of beauty, religious/political backgrounds, social status, and economic position often have quite intense confrontations as well. It is a sad thing really. Me thinks a lot of people end up depressed, take it out on their kids; try to make them more like themselves or apply abnormally high standards.

 

[no-body]

Even Jesus love is conditional. True unconditional love is a very rare thing.

Would you still love your partner/parents/sibling/etc the same way if they attacked/abused you?

 

[EverChanging]

More than homosexuality, how about the other "Christian" social values like loving your neighbor, your enemies, returning good for evil, disdaining wealth, &c.
Our society reflects these pretty poorly.

This is true. If these values were truly practiced, homophobia shouldn't be a problem.

 

[logician]

More than homosexuality, how about the other "Christian" social values like loving your neighbor, your enemies, returning good for evil, disdaining wealth, &c.
Our society reflects these pretty poorly.

Are these really "Christian" values? It seems to me the message of the NT was more for the poor to be satified with their lot. Since the poor were the main pool of believers the early Christian cults were pulling from, the unknown writers of the NT had to tailor their message to the poor.:sleep:

 

[beniah]

When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life." John 8:12

 

[EverChanging]

Are these really "Christian" values? It seems to me the message of the NT was more for the poor to be satified with their lot. Since the poor were the main pool of believers the early Christian cults were pulling from, the unknown writers of the NT had to tailor their message to the poor.

They are not exclusively Christian values. However, any message of any relevance will need to be geared toward someone. I don't at all find it bad that a spiritual or otherwise liberating message would be geared toward the poor or other oppressed or hurting groups. The civil rights movement comes to mind, which under Martin Luther King Jr. was largely spiritual, although he was definitely not a literalist Christian.

 

[beniah]

He was a co-pastor of a Baptist church in Atlanta, as was his father and grandfather. There might have been some Christianity involved in his righting wrongs. He also changed his name to Martin from Michael as an adult. Martin Luther was instrumental in Christian reformation.

 

[AxisMundi]

They are not exclusively Christian values. However, any message of any relevance will need to be geared toward someone. I don't at all find it bad that a spiritual or otherwise liberating message would be geared toward the poor or other oppressed or hurting groups. The civil rights movement comes to mind, which under Martin Luther King Jr. was largely spiritual, although he was definitely not a literalist Christian.

Exclusivism cannot be claimed as spiritual or enlightening.

 

[AxisMundi]

He was a co-pastor of a Baptist church in Atlanta, as was his father and grandfather. There might have been some Christianity involved in his righting wrongs. He also changed his name to Martin from Michael as an adult. Martin Luther was instrumental in Christian reformation.

Considering that it was Christianity that put those wrongs in place in the first place, nothing really to crow about.

 

[logician]

They are not exclusively Christian values. However, any message of any relevance will need to be geared toward someone. I don't at all find it bad that a spiritual or otherwise liberating message would be geared toward the poor or other oppressed or hurting groups. The civil rights movement comes to mind, which under Martin Luther King Jr. was largely spiritual, although he was definitely not a literalist Christian.

I didn't say it was bad, I was just disagreeing that they were "Christian" values.