Why do Christians like to fixate so much on homosexuality?

Post Reply New Topic

Well, he may be wrong, but at least he is both awesome and glorious.

Just for the record - before and after Christianity I rarely think about homosexuality. When I do it is mostly to marvel at the people - whatever their sexuality - who make various kinds of big deals about their own and others' sexuality. Sin is what sin is - and other people's sin is not MY business, I have enough of my own. If sinned at I may, though defend myself.

Also for the record, none of those who threw the label homosexual to me [I never understood it at the time] ever identified himself as Christian, and only one Christian I have met put a bad label on me - and it had nothing to do with sexuality.

AND for the record, the two people who I have reason to suspect approached me in the spirit of same gender pedophilia broadly defined, the guy in the woods and the gym teacher, was Catholic priest or any other type clergy.

Another question might be - why do "Christians is scum" media swallow and spit people spend so much time talking about homosexuality?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKWSuW1DbmU[/youtube]

I see I left an important "neither" out of my last paragraph. Never claimed to be able to type.

AND finally for the record, I do not highlight my bible or any other book. THAT is an abomination, if you will.

As I see it I think Christians have a much greater fixation on the abortion issue than homosexuality, especially if you were raised in the Roman Catholic persuasion as I once was.

Actually, according to the Bible, if a man rapes a girl who is not betrothed, then he is obliged to pay off her father and marry her--he may never divorce her as long as he lives.

Male homosexuals, on the other hand, are to be stoned to death, even if the homosexuality was consensual.

The Bible says nothing against Lesbianism. Lesbianism must have been permitted because a man could have multiple wives and concubines, and, this way, he could participate in sex acts with several wives and concubines at the same time without having to put any of them to death.

I do not know that i could go along with the "fixation" thing - easier to throw than to define - but taking it as it comes, one could point out that by the internal logic an act that by definition ends a life without even consulting it would have to trump an act that normally leaves those participating alive and able to make choices.

My 2 cents.

The Bible states that homosexuality is an "abomination." That makes it one of the WORST sins out there.

Ironically, only "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit" is unforgivable. All other sins can be forgiven.

I've always found it ironic how many churches (but not all) turn a blind eye to so many of the "sins" that are just as repugnant to God but make a big issue about something like homosexuality. Kind of like the mentality of "well, I'm not as bad as THAT guy, so I must be good."

There is an angle where, if you think about it, society will always deal with "sin" and how openly sin is accepted and practiced is a barometer of how healthy or sick society has become. Go even 50 years back and there are things that were never done in public...certainly not tolerated. Now, it seems that anything is acceptable. That society grows more "comfortable" with these acts indicates what is happening in society, and it can be alarming to people who hold that such practices, although always going on, now attain a status of public acceptance.

...yes.... 1960 was definitely a "healthy" time, morally.....

^a lot of people actually think this. i find this depressing.

Why do Christians like to fixate so much on homosexuality? - Christians are in the sin business. Christians are encouraged to point out sin to their followers. Examples: Christian Daystar TV minister president admits seven year adultery affair with woman employee/doesn't care - Pope of Italy admits many Italian Catholic ministers involved in child crimes/doesn't care. Why? It's not about caring, it's about m o n e y: fame, greed, lust for power, lust for money, godless, corrupt religious stage actors around the world get paid big bucks for pointing out sin.

I challenge you to demonstrate any government that has taken such a step. I suggest that in no jurisdiction where same-sex marriages are legal has any religious organization been compelled to celebrate a marriage between two people who do not qualify for marriage within that religious tradition's requirements.

Has any government forced a Roman Catholic priest to celebrate a legal marriage between divorced persons? Then why should any government force a Roman Catholic priest to celebrate a legal marriage between two members of the same sex? And why should government prohibit a member of the clergy from performing such a marriage if it is canonically acceptable?

I respect your religious beliefs, and will fully support your decisions to govern your life in accord with them. If you believe same-sex marriage to be a sin, I support your decision not to marry a member of the same sex. But I do not support the view that the moral views of citizens, even a majority of citizens, can justify depriving another citizen of civil liberties enjoyed by others.

Oww, nothing like a good challenge.

Daily telegraph, 15th December 2010

Clergy could be sued if they refuse to carry out ‘gay marriages’, traditionalists fear
Clergy could be sued if they refuse to carry out “gay marriages” in church, leading figures have warned.
By Martin Beckford and Heidi Blake 10:00PM GMT 03 Mar 2010

Traditionalist bishops and peers fear that vicars could be taken to court and accused of discrimination if they turn down requests to hold civil partnerships on religious premises.

Their concerns have been raised following a landmark vote by peers that will allow the ceremonies for same-sex couples to be held in places of worship for the first time.

It is also feared that the changes would blur the line further between marriage - which churches say must be between a man and a woman - and civil partnerships.

It comes after a Government drive to outlaw bias against minority groups such as homosexuals in the Equality Bill.

Until now civil partnerships, which entitle same-sex couples to the same legal rights of married spouses, have been restricted to register offices and secular venues such as hotels and stately homes.

But under an amendment to the Equality Bill tabled in the House of Lords by Lord Alli, a homosexual Labour peer, the ban on the events taking place on religious premises will be lifted.

The amendment states that national faith groups will not be forced to carry out civil partnerships.

But it is feared that same-sex couples would be able to use the protection from discrimination guaranteed - under the Equality Bill or the Human Rights Act - to take legal action against individual clergy in their parish if they refuse to “marry” them in a local church.

The Rt Rev Michael Scott-Joynt, the Bishop of Winchester, said: “I believe that it will open, not the Church of England, but individual clergy, to charges of discrimination if they solemnise marriages as they all do, but refuse to host civil partnership signings in their churches. Unless the Government does something explicit about this, I believe that is the next step.”

The Bishop of Bradford, the Rt Rev David James, warned during the debate of the “unintended consequences” of the move.

He said that although it was being presented to “simply be an available option” to some religious groups, he was “not so confident” that it would remain that way.

Lord Waddington, a former Home Secretary, said: “If this amendment were carried, it would only be a matter of time before it was argued that it was discriminatory for a church incumbent to refuse to allow a civil partnership ceremony to take place when the law allowed it.”

In an argument backed by Lord Tebbit, he said that a clergyman “prepared to register marriages but not to register civil partnerships would be accused of discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation in the provision of services and pressure would be brought to bear on him to pocket his principles and do what he believed to be wrong”.

Lord Waddington said “without doubt there would be the risk of costly litigation” under the Equality Bill or the Human Rights Act.

Last night Don Horrocks, Head of Public Affairs for the Evangelical Alliance, which represents thousands of churches across Britain, said: “We understand the Lords’ desire to allow a few liberal religious groups to have freedom to follow their consciences. But neither must other religious groups be forced to betray their consciences by facing lawsuits if they fail to allow a civil ceremony.”

Under the Civil Partnership Act 2004, homosexual couples are allowed to hold civil partnership ceremonies in register offices and approved venues such as stately homes and hotels, but they were banned from doing so in churches while the events were not allowed to be religious in character.

In the amendment to Harriet Harman’s controversial Equality Bill tabled by Lord Alli late on Monday night, the ban on religious premises was lifted. It was passed on a free vote by 95 to 21, with only two of the bishops – the Lords Spiritual – taking part.

The amendment stated: “For the avoidance of doubt, nothing in this Act places an obligation on religious organisations to host civil partnerships if they do not wish to do so.”

But the fear is that the protection from discrimination in the 'provision of goods or services' guaranteed in the Equality Bill will mean that homosexuals could take legal action against clergy who refused to hold the ceremonies in their church.

Andrea Williams, the director of the Christian Legal Centre, said: “We have seen countless cases where, as a result of similar sorts of legislation, religious adoption agencies have been forced to close and Christians have been forced out of their jobs for acting according to their beliefs.

“This amendment was brought in by a few peers literally at the 11th hour – at 10.59pm – with no proper debate, and yet it fundamentally changes the very nature of civil partnerships.

“There is no doubt that the homosexual lobby will now test it: they will apply for ceremonies in churches and when the minister refuses they will challenge him under the law.

"This is a further blurring of the definition of civil partnerships, which are becoming equivalent to marriage and churches are being forced to treat them as such."

Mike Judge of the Christian Institute echoed fears that the amendment could leave clergy facing costly law suits.

"We are very concerned about this and it’s a very alarming proposal," he said. "Even if this amendment says on the face of it that it only applies to those who choose to perform civil partnerships, that will not end up being the case and clergy will end up facing very costly legal bills in order to defend themselves against law suits.

"The Government has failed to understand the nature of religious liberty and has treated faith as nothing more than a matter of personal devotion. Now Christians feel let down and ignored. This is another step in the process of trying to force religions groups to abandon their core beliefs."

The amendment has yet to be approved in the Commons and Baroness Royall, the leader of the Lords, warned it would "not work in practice", by blurring the line between marriage and civil partnerships.

A spokesman for the Government Equalities Office said: "Baroness Royall made the Government's position clear during the debate; we're now considering our position and deciding what steps to take next."

The move has been welcomed by equality campaigners, however.

Liberal Jews said they hoped to hold the first-ever civil partnership in a synagogue, while Quakers and Unitarians also want to hold the ceremonies on their premises.

Rabbi Aaron Goldstein, Joint Chair of the Rabbinic Conference of Liberal Judaism, said: “We are delighted that our synagogues are now able to host civil partnerships at the same time as same-sex commitment blessings. It is another step towards full equality for gay men and lesbians. My community is looking forward to being able to celebrate its first ever Jewish spiritual blessing together with the English legal ceremony, and to enjoying the whole simcha onsite.”

Peter Tatchell, the veteran campaigner for gay rights, said: “"Our next goal is to secure marriage equality, to end the prohibition on lesbian and gay couples having a civil marriage in a registry office.”

The National Secular Society claimed that bishops opposed the move because of their fears that it will worsen the divide within the Church of England over homosexuality. Blessings of civil partnerships are not allowed in Anglican churches but liberal clergy want this to change.

The NSS’s executive director, Keith Porteous Wood, said: “Could [the bishops’] concern be a selfish one, that when this becomes law many of its own vicars and congregations will carry out these ceremonies regardless of episcopal strictures, leading to schism on yet another front?”

Neil Addison, a barrister specialising in religious discrimination cases, said: "As the Law now stands Churches and Synangogues that are registered to conduct Marriages could easily find themselves being sued for discrimination if they do not register to conduct Civil Partnerships.

"Local Authorities could also refuse to grant or renew marriage authorisation to Churches and Synangogues that do not also apply for Civil Partnership authorisation. The Government should add a new amendment to the Equality Act to make it crystal clear that there is no legal requirement for religious organisations or officials who perform mariages to perform civil partnerships also."


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The prospect of same-sex marriage has already spawned legal collisions with the rights of free speech and of action based on religious beliefs. For example, advocates and government officials in certain states already are challenging the long-held right of religious adoption agencies to follow their religious beliefs and only place children in homes with both a mother and a father. As a result, Catholic Charities in Boston has stopped offering adoption services.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But only male homosexuality. Female homosexuality is condoned.

For real?
Just out of curiosity can you site chapter and verse?

I think part of it is that homosexuality is one of the "hot topics" of our times. Every culture existing today has to make decisions related to homosexuality. (is it an acceptable lifetstyle? should gay couples marry? adopt? etc. etc.) Those decisions will affect the future of said culture for better or worse.

As for homophobic behaviors, I think it has to do with the way hate functions. Hatred gives the hater the feeling of doing something important.

Those that fixate more on homosexuality than the gays are bigger fa***ts than the gays themselves lol

Seriously though, why the f**k do people care so much about what other people consensually do in their own bedrooms?