I could answer in part, but I think the whole point of the op is not why ‘fundies’ disagree or agree, but why they are drawn to the threads. What threads? I don’t know, but it’s a well known fact that they are, even if we don’t know what they are, and any attempt to try and find out is futile, as it’s not required in Great Debate to prove what you are debating about. That’s just the feeling I get from the op, although I would love to be proven wrong.
Svt
I don’t think the question was why are they drawn to threads, per se as much as why are so many fundamentalist Christians so preoccupied with homosexuality in general.
[Moderator Hat ON]
Lissener, if someone says they don’t like a certain nickname, I would advise you not to continue to use it in this forum. Attack the argument, not the poster.
[Moderator Hat OFF]
I’m going to grant your first premise, that threads about homosexuality turn into a shouting match between the “homos” and “fundies.” I don’t know for sure that’s it’s true because you haven’t deemed to provide any links, and Svt4Him claims to have supplied links that show that it isn’t. But let’s say that it’s true.
I would hazard to guess that not all fundamentalists are drawn to these debates. I think there are a few rabid individuals who are noisy enough to create that impression. And, it happens to be a flashpoint in our culture today. Ten years ago it was abortion; before that is was the sexual revolution; and so on.
I would submit that most Christians who believe homosexual behavior to be wrong – fundamentalist or not – aren’t particularly fascinated by homosexuality and don’t go out of their way to get into debates – or shouting matches – about it. It just seems that way to you (and others who are passionate about the topic) because the ones that do are vocal and they disagree with you.
So try to paint with a finer brush, you’ll end up with a more accurate picture.
Personally, I think they’re nuts about homosexuals because they can’t really get away with saying black people are evil, or women are evil anymore. (Note the “can’t really”. They still do stick it in when they get the chance. I got some literature from a Witless recently that talked about how a woman should provide services to a man, unless both agreed to abstain. There’s a lovely loophole for ya.)
Everyone’s evil except the white, christian males.
What I heard (sorry I can’t back up where I heard this. Probably American Atheists or something similar.) is homosexuality was declared verboten so they would breed more Christians. If the men are getting their action from other men, there’s less chance they’ll knock their wives up. More births = more Christians.
And that wonderful banning is still there, along with no rare steaks or cotton/poly blend. Which somehow aren’t as important anymore.
What good is it to be a fundamentalist if there’s nothing to complain about? If everything were fine and dandy, there’d be no need for fundies. Homosexuals are largely the target. Why…? I couldn’t tell you, I can’t begin to fathom the fundie mind. But personally I think they just need someone to hate, and it’s something they can find a line in the bible about.
Ashleigh just reminded me of something I forgot to say – I see a lot more negative and unfair stereotypes aimed at fundamentalists on these boards than I do of homosexuals (although there’s a fair share of that also). Ash, you forgot to mention how they eat their babies too.
I’m wondering if this is a bit of a straw man. To me, it doesn’t appear that most debates on homosexuality go this way.
I may be wrong, though.
I’m a fundamentalist, and I don’t think I’ve ever argued against homosexuality in a thread here. I was involved in one or two homosexuality threads in the Pit, in which I took no stance whatsoever. I don’t think the church should sanction it, but I don’t have any particular problem with gay marriage being made legal.
lissener, you can’t get mad when people call for cites. Despite my anecdotal evidence to the contrary, there are some fundamentalist Christians who spend great amounts of time and money decrying homosexuality. Just do a quick Google search on “Jerry Falwell homosexuality” and post the first few websites you get. Or look through some old GD and Pit threads about homosexuality and post evidence from them. Then you can deride Svt4Him as much as you want.
BTW, why are some fundamentalists so consumed about homosexuality? Partially because it’s the “it” thing to be against, as someone said (I can’t seem to find that post). Partially because, as Squink said, it’s an easy scapegoat. As a sin that they themselves are not tempted toward, they find it easier to condemn (as opposed to, say, adultery). And partially because they are worried about homosexuality being seen as “right” in ten or twenty years, the same way that divorce and premarital sex are seen as being “right” now. So they want to nip this thing in the bud (or as close to the bud as they can get).
lissener, I must appologize, as my last post wasn’t needed. I’m sorry, and honestly I am not trying to diss or insult you. If you know my belief, and have a problem with me being Christian, I can’t change that. But if I’ve ever said something offensive, I’m sorry, and I will honestly try not to again, as it isn’t my intent.
Excuse me for agreeing with you, pal.
Your OP is about “fundies”. Any debate on abortion with people who call themselves Chrstian Fundamentalists will not be about where to draw the line. For them, there is no line. That was the point.
I’m not actually looking to be derided, I really do want a link. I would have to ask that it be in GD, as the op did mention debates, and the pit isn’t known for it’s great debating style, IMO. And Jerry Falwell hasn’t ever replied to a thread in GD, as far as I can see. But I’m not here to defend it, as I don’t even know what ‘it’ is.
However, if you’re a Christian, then those guidelines from Leviticus were nullified by Jesus. Otherwise, you’d be commanded by Leviticus to not only avoid think of homosexuality as an abomination – no, that’s just the beginning – Leviticus commands you to kill homosexuals. Also, you are commanded to kill adulterers. Also, children who curse their parents have to be killed.
Surely you’re not going to do this, but why not? The same Leviticus that tells you that homosexuality is an abomination also commands you to kill people. You can’t pick and choose. That would be twisting the book to fit with what you already believe, and that’s just plain dishonest. No, either you take the bad with the “good”, of you discard the whole thing.
Oh, and Member, I was using the generic “you” in my post, as a way of referencing anyone who actually states the “homosexuality is an abomination because of Leviticus” as their reason for being anti-gay. It wasn’t until after I posted that I realized that it looks like I was addressing you directly.
Interesting, then, that Judaism doesn’t seem to produce the same sort of rabid denunciations of homosexuality (or, indeed, many of the other things condemned in Leviticus) that you see in Christianity. (Or maybe it does, and it just doesn’t get the same level of mainstream attention?) FYI, this looks like a useful summary of the official views of the various types of Judaism on homosexuality.
And why is it that every time this argument comes up, it’s always:
“Leviticus says it’s bad.”
“But Leviticus says other things are bad too.”
“All right, then: Paul says it’s bad.”
Next time, let’s just jump straight to Paul and skip the first two steps.
Ever hear the quote ‘The Lady doth protest too much methinks’? I have always suspected anyone who rattles on and on in a homophobic manner to be secretley harbouring thoughts of going to see Shirley Bassey in concert. My two cents (of the Euro variety)
Leviticus 20:9
Leviticus 20:10
Leviticus 20:18
Why does 13 get special treatment?
Then, of course, there are the teachings of Christ as to what in the law is most important.
CJ
Actually, there are Christians in the modern USA who want to return to such practices. At least some of the “Reconstructionists” want this.
I think you might get close to it if you asked a fundie to define what a typical gay is like. Most of them would say, “Urban, wealthy, likes opera, liberal, educated, physically weak and cowardly, drives an expensive European car, eats out a lot in expensive restaurants, lives in an apartment, keeps small yippy dogs not much bigger than a rat.”
if the description were more like, “rural, likes country music, conservative, not highly educated, strong and brave, drives a pickup, likes home cooking, lives in a farmhouse, keeps hound dogs …” I think fundies would feel a little different about gays.
Now, I am not asserting the validity of this stereotype, I’m just betting it’s a fairly widespread stereotype among fundies. The sexual yuck factor is there, too.
We also can’t ignore the political opportunism to be had by attacking a political outgroup whose sexual practices are repugnant to one’s membership. I suspect this is why fundies have also been attacking BDSM events – writing letters threatening boycotts and such to hotels and convention centers that host such events. Same deal – attacking a sexual outgroup perceived to be largely urban and liberal.
This may backfire ultimately, however, given that the Southern Baptist Convention is on record as requiring that a wife “submit” to her husband. 
Here’s my take on this, take it for what it’s worth:
Paul equated homosexuality with adultery and fornication. Why? Homosexuality could not be legitimized through marriage (at least, not at that time). Adultery and fornication were condemned because they were acts outside of marriage. Though not exactly a part of this debate, the steps homosexuals are taking to legitimize their “lifestyle” through state-sanctioned marriage ceremonies is seen by fundamentalists as an assault on what makes marriage a “special” arrangement. Essentially, fundamentalists see sexual relations within a marriage context as acceptable, anything outside of that context is taboo.
It has been mentioned that divorce, etc. are “accepted” now. It should be remembered that this, too, is a fairly recent phenomenon. Let’s not forget that King Henry’s split with the Catholic Church to establish the Church of England was over divorce, so it could be said it took centuries for divorce to be seen as “acceptable” by society at large (extreme fundamentalists still don’t accept divorce - and the reasons why they are wrong there are for another thread, entirely).
As for my personal take on the whole homosexuality and genetic links issue (it was mentioned earlier, so I’m mentioning it now), I see it this way:
I, as a straight male, am predisposed to want to shag everything human and female, that I’m attracted to. Paul discourages such behavior. The same can be said for homosexuality. Though predisposed to such activities (genetically or otherwise), that activity is discouraged.
Why fundamentalists are drawn to this? Like others have said - it’s the hot button of the moment, and they see it as yet another indicator of the moral decay of the society at large.
- Dirk
"I think you might get close to it if you asked a homo to define what a typical fundamentalist is like. Most of them would say, “Rural, lower-to-middle class, likes guns, conservative, uneducated, intellectually weak and closed-minded, drives a pickup truck, goes to church twice a week, homeschools their kids, has a Jesus fish bumper sticker and a WWJD bracelet.”
if the description were more like, “urban, likes rock music, politically independent, highly educated, tolerant of other views, drives a Nissan, likes going to movies and restaurants, lives in a townhouse, keeps fish, watches South Park and roots for the Cubs…” I think homos would feel a little different about fundamentalists."
Stereotypes cut both ways. My point is you can’t describe what “fundies” think about gays anymore than you can describe… what Democrats think of Republicans or what Hindus think about atheists. You’re basing your description on a small sample, while igoring the ones that don’t fit your description.