Most debates that touch on the issue of homosexuality eventually trail off to a simplistic two-sided shouting match between fundamentalist christians and homosexuals. I understand why we homos often feel compelled to participate in such discussions, but what is it that so fascinates fundamentalists about homosexuality? Why is it such a pet issue for so many of them? By what twist of logic do they even consider it even to be remotely relevant to them and the lifestyle they have chosen?
What are the characteristics of “the fundamentalist lifestyle”? 
I’m not a fundamentalist, but I have noticed in my time on message boards that fundies seem to harp on homosexuals an awful lot. Granted that’s anecdotal and all.
What’s interesting to me is, fundies seem to be fixated on homosexuals (becuase in their mind, I’m assuming, homosexuals can’t get into heaven), but they don’t seem to care all that much about other religions.
It’s a tad odd, IMO.
Fundamentalists aren’t allowed to have fun.
Homosexuals have lots of fun (why do you think they’re called “gay”?).
Ergo, Fundamentalists are jealous of homosexuals and wish to tear them down. 
I think this might have something to do with it. First, a lot of fundimentalists have an objection to the idea of homosexual sex…partly because of a sincere objection that having homosexual sex is wrong, and partly because of the yuck factor. And, a lot of the fundimentalists, if they had their druthers, would probably prefer if nobody was gay.
The gay rights movement has only really been in existance for about the past 30 years, and gay rights is a “hot” political topic right now…should gay people be allowed in the millitary, should gay couples have the same rights as straight ones, etc. There’s still an active debate in this country about whether gay people should have the same rights as straight people, and some people, not just fundimentalists, who don’t think we should.
Now, for those fundimentalists who are opposed to gay rights, they see the granting of gay rights as a symptom of American moral and cultural decline. They have trouble with the idea that America could even consider legitimizing a (to them) evil, immoral action. It would be like the government saying “We don’t care if people murder each other”, or “We don’t care if people steal from each other”. But, of course, murderers and thieves aren’t trying get laws passed saying it’s ok. Gay people are.
So, there’s a debate going on as to whether homosexuality should be seen as normative, and a lot of anti-gay fundimentalists are doing their darndest to see that it’s not.
It’s like pornography: hard to describe, but you know it when they’re trying to shove it down your throat.
Capt Amazing hit it right on the head. Exactly like the abortion debate, lissener, if that makes you feel any better.
Assuming that the recent thread ‘There’s a new study out, albeit a bit vague, that ‘proves’ homosexuality is genetic, so do you religious people change your mind or are you going to remain stuck in your ignorant homophobia?’ sparked this, I find it funny that you couldn’t address the issues in the actual thread. But I guess a dog pile is better then any sort of logical argument.
And, if you wouldn’t mind, can you link to one of these threads started by these fundies?
Wait.
The abortion debate is at least a discussion, depending on where you draw the “life” line, of life and death. How can that possibly compare to who I’m happy spending my time with?
Once again, Svvt, you address a point OTHER than the one under discussion. You know what you do when you start to assume? You make an ASS out of yourself.
In the first place.
In the second, it’s wholly irrelevant who starts these threads: why are the fundies so drawn to them?
Start with the “logic” Svt4Him. I’d love to see the reasons why the fundaloonies are more obsessed with my sex life than I am.
Actually, I want to change my username to Svt4Him, because I’ll kneel before just about ANY man.
Poly -
Offhand, it seems to me that the “Fundamentalist Lifestyle,” at least as practiced by the folks about whom the OP is talking, follows the great Christian rule:
“Hate thy neighbor as thyself.”
OTOH, I believe lissener is talking about that group some refer to as fundaloonies rather than fundamentalists.
But I could be wrong.
Ok, well I’ll look at what you said, then compare it to what is here. There’s this thread: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=218391
Which I can’t see any fundie doing what you are talking about. Granted you added the qualifier “most” so I’ll have to look for others. Granted I’m sticking to the first page, maybe that’s my fault,
Then there’s this:http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=218704
which is the thread I was refering to, which makes me wonder how saying that one cite does not overrule many other cites turns it into a shouting match. Why did I participate? Well, read the op in the second link, as the question put forth seems to be what the op was looking for.
Now let me address the questions:
Homebrew can you give me a link that would suggest I’m remotely (being a fundie that I am) concerned with your sex life? Not only that, but maybe you can answer why it’s ok to make fun of these ‘fundaloonies’? But I’ll wait for the link.
** lissener** you seem to be addressing issues of character, and not terribly concerned with facts. Again, the second thread asked if I would change my religious belief based on this one study. The first one, I don’t believe I said anything. So how was I so drawn to it? Granted I’m talking about myself, others may have different views.
Now there is also this thread:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=217993, but I fail to see how that is proving your point again. You seem rather bent on attacking character, but I’d like to also add, that you still haven’t addressed any of the issues brought up. When you say “you address a point OTHER than the one under discussion” I can only assume that, since I haven’t posted anything else here before this, that you are refering to the second thread. Seems like a high probability that my assumption is correct. Granted assumption is the lowest form of knowledge, but I have yet to be shown by you that it’s wrong.
Now you make a claim like your op, and, as in any other thread, you have to bear the burden of validating your claim. So can you please link to one of these threads? And if the question is posted in Great Debates, you will get opposing views. If you want to share something without the debate, don’t post it here.
Wait, your entire “argument” is based on your refusal to accept, without specific cites, that many of the gay-issues threads here attract the participation of fundamentalist christians?
Is there anyone here who really takes issue with that basic premise, or are you just suggesting, Svvt, that even though such an obvious given is so clearly true, you’re not going to grant me permission to initiate this debate unless I agree to include gratuitous, unnecessary cites? You seem to be suggesting that there’s some rule, so immutable that even when there’s a collective agreement as to the given premise of a topic, cites must be included or the thread’s disallowed on a technicality.
Weak.
Everyone else here accepts that obvious premise as a given. As odd man out, why don’t YOU find a gay-issues thread to which a fundamentalist christian doesn’t feel compelled to contribute?
You’re right. The debate over abortion is (or can be) a life and death debate, while giving gay people equal rights doesn’t physically harm anyone. But, then the next question would be, what’s the purpose of the law? You seem to be taking a “libertarian” philosophy here…which is that the purpose of law is to prevent one person from physically harming another against the second person’s will. So the law against murder is justified because it prevents one person from killing another against his will. So according to this theory, laws criminalizing homosexuality, criminalizing drug use, criminalizing other consentual crimes aren’t justified unless the legislators can prove they’re not really consentual…that someone is being harmed against their will.
However, there’s another, probably more common legal philosophy, which is that one of the purposes of law is to prevent one person from harming another, but that another purpose of law is to “do what’s right”…that the law reflects the values of society and protects society. So, according to this philosophy, a society can pass laws banning pornography or mandating a minumum wage. Nobody is directly harmed by making porn available or letting businesses pay their workers less than a certain amount of money. Laws like that say, “We as a society think that porn shouldn’t be allowed”, and “We as a society think that people working should be guaranteed at least x in income.”
It’s that second theory of law that the fundimentalists opposed to gay rights follow (and, not just them. In my experience, at least, very few people hold to a strictly Libertarian philosophy.
OP: The sky is blue.
Svvt: That may be, but instead of discussing that, do you mind if I cleverly divert the discussion into a kind of meta-discussion, and reframe it so that we’re discussing the discussion itself, rather than the actual topic at hand? It’s the only way I know of dealing with issues that I’m not comfortable dealing with directly, and it allows me to promulgate the illusion that I’m really discussing the OP, because I can say things like “Shouldn’t we establish the definition of the word sky first?” and “Who are you to dictate to me what color blue is?” See, I’m using the words in the OP, so I can pretend to be contributing relevant discussion, but actually I’m only using them at one remove, indirectly, so I’m not really addressing the content of the OP at all, only the context. Hopefully, this will frustrate everyone else to the point where they’ll just withdraw from the debate and I can tell myself that I’ve silenced them with my brilliance, when actually it’s just dishonest “debate” tactics.
Because murderers and theives aren’t going around sying we are okay,theres nothing wrong with this (which there is) and gays and thebpublic doesn’tthink theres something wrong with being gay, so the fundies don’t Need to say murder is wrong etc.My guess.
lissener, if you would like to abbreviate my name, feel free to use Svt. Show the same respect you would hope I’d show. Honestly though, I don’t really know how to reply to the last post directed to me, as I don’t really understand what you are asking or getting at. But the second last post I can understand, and again I don’t know what the issue is. Have there been homosexual threads Christians have been involved in? Sure. Any more than the Christian threads atheists have been involved in? Or the medical threads that have attracted people other than doctors, or the pet threads that non-pet owners post in. As for disallowing a thread, I simply asked for a link to see where you are coming from, but in reply I get character attacks. And if you use popular opinion to show you’re right, then you will always be right in most threads like these. I was more interested in the truth than in public opinion though, and hence the request for a link.
Svvt, your position on the subject is inherently disrespectful to me (talk about character attacks!), so my hope doesn’t come into it; ditto your dishonest debate tactics.
And I prefer the double v, because it suggests, to my fevered imagination, a cloven hoof.