Because it’s an easy target, maybe? I dunno…
My guess though, a lot of it has to do with ignorance and the “ick” factor. They’re “different”, and “icky”, or whatever. Which is sad. I mean, if you find the thought of getting romantic with someone of the same sex icky, well, just don’t do it then.
Right?
But of course, that would make too much sense.
I think it has more to do with insecurity. Not necessarily being unsure of one’s sexuality. I just think insecurity in general.
“Oh, I don’t say you’re an abomination, just let me tell you every other minute EXACTLY what my translation of a 2000-year-old document says about the loving actions you take based on your sexuality. And, by the way, it’s very insulting, but I’m not saying it, this book is!”
:rolleyes: Some of you see a distinction. Others of us see a book being used as a weapon. And the worse thing is that you claim it is in the name of God.
Reminds me of a few MST3K fan fics I found. The originals were these usenet rants written by really wacked out fundies, and then given the MST3K treatment. The originals were extremely vulgar and homophobic, but the MST3K parts were hysterical!
Wow, even when vix, Hamadryad, and I were having a long, enthusiastic, and loud conversation about the joys of being a girl who dates girls wherein I took out my girlfriend’s picture and showed it to the entire room? 
OK JerseyDiamond, I forgive you for ignoring my post, maybe you were talking to me, maybe you weren’t. But for personal reasons that I won’t bring up here, I feel a little dissed by you. Oh well, it is what it is.
Carry on.
And I think it’s OK to be Catholic, as long as you don’t actually practice catholicism. 
Thylacine, I agree with you completely. Have you ever noticed how many social conservatives, both preachers and politicians have railed against homosexuality but admitted to adultery? I’m thinking of Jerry Falwell, Henry Hyde, Helen Chenoweth, to name only names I can think of at 6 am.
CJ
Jersey Diamond said, “I am saying that the Bible says that homosexual sex is an abomination.”
We know what your interpretation of the bible is. The question is, what do YOU PERSONALLY think about homosexual sex? Don’t come back with another re-hashing of what the bible says…I want to know YOUR PERSONAL THOUGHTS ON IT.
And please don’t tell me that you have to believe every word of the bible, because it’s obviously not true. Do YOU believe that homosexual sex is an abomination?
Yes ** Andygirl**, for a brief moment I thought to myself ‘ok, she is gay’. Did anything change? Did I move my seat? No, I treated you like everyone else. You may have been having a loud conversation, but my attention was not only on the people at our table. There were a lot of dopers there that night. Correct me if I am wrong, but I think vix is Bi, and my boyfriend and I even requested vix and her SO go to dinner with us, and we did. (not the same night)
We are friendly to everyone. Eventually they may decide that they don’t want to be around us because of our beliefs, but that will be their doing. We do not discriminate.
EchoKitty, I personally think that homosexual sex is wrong. I think that a man and woman are suppose to be together. I think that women were created for men. To me, homosexuality seems unnatural. Yes, I believe that homosexuality sex is an abomination. I think it distorts Gods Plan.
dreamer, I am not dissing you hon! Sometimes and get a little flustered and have to leave the computer. I forgot! See you in GB soon.
Jersey,
I don’t get it.
I posted this over in Poly’s other thread.
I had a friend who, it was discovered, engaged in behavior I didn’t approve of. He hit his girlfriend. With witnesses. Since I think hitting your girlfriend is wrong, I don’t invite him out to dinner. In fact, none of my friends talk to the bastard anymore.
I had another friend who admitted to cheating on her husband. This hurt her husband badly. We don’t invite her over any longer (I still go out of my way to talk to the husband). I don’t approve of adultery and I refuse to be friends with someone who would behave in such a manner
One of our great pains (our includes my husband in this case) is the loss of a lovely woman as a friend. We really enjoy her and her company. Its just that her husband came on to me in a manner I can’t approve of. I do still see her, but our interaction with them is very limited.
I don’t get the whole “you do something I really don’t approve of, but I’ll treat you like its ok” thing.
Maybe I’d make a poor Christian (I’m not), because I am pretty quick to judge. And if I don’t execute the offenders, I remove them from my life as much as possible - at least until they apologize and show signs of turning over a new leaf. I’m not very tolerent.
And it might be a shades of grey thing - I have friends who don’t vote the same way I do, that seems to be ok with me.
–boggle–
So you’re a sexist too?
Maybe you’d like to withdraw that and reconsider your wording.
Well, Dangerosa, it’s pretty simple. I’ll give you Paul’s explanation of it (from 1 Corinthians 5:9-13) instead of trying to do it myself:
Having homosexual friends is not the same as hanging out and having a beer with a rapist or a wife beater. But Jesus himself dined with sinners.
As Jersey said earlier, the Christian’s job is to spread the Gospel. Now, the point of the Gospel is that God provided a way for you to be cleaned of your sin. But it’s not just all warm, fuzzy feelings and saying “Jesus loves you!” A very important point that people seem to be missing is that an integral part of the Gospel is that you are a sinner. Because if you don’t believe that you are, then you have no reason to want to be saved from it. So spreading the Gospel in a loving manner MUST include the fact that all people are sinners. You can’t disassociate the presense of sin from the good news.
And maybe she wouldn’t. Who made you the thought police? Are you saying that she can’t hold an opinion that you don’t agree with?
And this is your message of tolerance, right? :rolleyes:
Um Dangerosa, if I were you, I would clarify where homosexuality stands in your lexicon of Socially Irredemable sins * really quickly *. I realize you’re making a point, and that your post doesn’t even mention the issue, but as the niggardly thread in GD showed, it is amazingly easy for people to be offended by innocuous material. Just a suggestion.
God save me from your Gospel.
Esprix
Unless, of course, you pay attention to the quote right above that in your own post…
Oh, blow me.
Read it again. Go slowly and focus on the words. Clear your mind, grasshopper. Read for comprehension.
The first bit, “boggle,” indicates, “Does that really mean what it seems to mean?”
The second bit means, “Do you really, honestly, believe that women were created to provide service for and be used by men?”
And the third bit means, “If that’s not what you meant, you might want to reconsider the wording.”
Because, see, people hold all sorts of opinions I think are rubbish. Velikovskians think a giant meteor went billiarding around the solar system, spraying Rice Chex on the Israelites and causing Noah’s Deluge among other things, before settling down as what we know today as the planet Venus. They’re free to believe that. They’re wrong, but whatever.
If they express such a ridiculous belief on this board, they can expect to be called on it. To me, it seemed that “women were created for men” was exactly the sort of bullshit medieval nonsense that gets slammed around here. I pointed it out, and suggested that JD may want to consider if that’s what she really meant to say.
If it isn’t, she can clarify, and rescue herself from an inadvertent tangent.
If it is, well, it’s yet another brick in the “JD is a clueless, brainwashed fundie loon” wall she’s happily building for herself.
P.S. By the way, I didn’t mean “blow me” literally. You probably knew that, but since your reading comprehension skills are evidently somewhat questionable, better safe than sloppy.
robertliguori,
homosexuality doesn’t have a place in my sin list - since sex between two consenting adults (where there isn’t a third non-consenting adult intimately involved) isn’t a sin.
(You couldn’t really call it a sin list anyway - since sin implies some sort of God/moral authority thing and I just have a self/moral authority thing going).
Jersey Diamond, I’d also like a bit of clarification on your statement “I think that women were created for men.” My reading on the passage in Genesis which discusses the creation of Eve is that she was created as a partner. Being Episcopalian, I’m not that good at citing chapter and verse, but I can’t recall any passages in the Gospel where Christ interacts with a woman solely as a wife. In fact, I don’t recall any mention of Mary and Martha’s husbands at all.
I’m one of the people you haven’t responded to, although we have been arguing opposite sides. Still, I am asking out of genuine curiousity, not a desire to condemn.
Respectfully,
CJ
Hi, cjhoworth. I believe that Eve was created as a helper for Adam.
This does not mean I think women are slaves to men.
When two people get married, the man is the head of the relationship.
I am not quite sure what you are talking about when you threw in Mary and Martha and Christ interacting with a woman as a wife. In reference to that, are you asking me something?
Thanks, JD