Why do Christians like to fixate so much on homosexuality?

Post Reply New Topic

This is entirely incorrect.
The state of California currently extends to same-sex couples in 'civil unions' pretty much all of the benefits granted by the state to married couples. The case currently pending in the 9th (IIrc) circuit court is about whether or not people of the state had the right to amend the constitution saying that a marriage is only between a man and a woman. The only right that this case addresses is the right to use the word, 'marriage.'

""you guys," in context, would be christians who fixate on homosexuality to the extent that they insist on laws preventing people from marrying for love. "

Okay, let me try to get this straight.

We started with the claim [surprising to me] that Christians [general statement] are fixatred on homosexuality, coupled with the thought that the government should not be in the business of regulating homosexuality. News to me - I know there have been times and places with laws restricting certain homosexual behaviors as well as heterosexual behaviors, but I honestly was not aware that congress and the state legislatures are constantly debating what sexual behaviors and accessories should be criminalized, licensed, regulated or taxed [how would one enforce a fornication tax? Detector vans as with unlicensed TV in the UK?].

But then we move to a large statement containing a "you guys" which I thought had to mean Christians, but apparently you only meant certain Christians - those who insist on laws preventing people marrying for love.

Now I know there are laws preventing certain kinds of marriage for love [actually, I don't think the laws take motivation into account. I know about polygamy [which is very problematic given cases where a polygamous family enters the country - does Dred Scott apply?]. I know about underage unions. But I was not aware that there are other laws blocking one single adult from marrying another.

But of course you are not talking about marriage but of the state extending certain privileges and imposing certain obligations on married couples. Which is a very different thing, as has been recognized at various times throughout history when a couple counted as married for the state but not the church - or vice versa - or where slave marriages did not confer certain civil rights.

Well, the state is the state, and with the "implied consent" of the theoretically represented governed sees fit to impose taxes and zoning laws and public education requirements and restaurant hygiene standards and rules for consuming tobacco, alcohol and so on. Which you may think is none of their business, but don't pass a state trooper's car on the highway.

There are, yes, Christians [AND others, let us not fall into a fallacy] who feel the government should not spread married couple tax breaks around any further. Of course this does not affect marriage - I would be just as married if there were no joint return. But some - Christian or non, homosexual or non - see it as a big symbolic deal.

Me, I am not much on symbols - I am into truth. If you're married and you know it, clap your hands - if you don't know it, a piece of paper is not much help.

I - and I am not the only person NOR the only Christian to feel this way - would prefer it if the government did not confer knighthood on some marriages, did not tell me what pronouns to use, what symbols not to display, what to teach and what to keep from my offspring. But those people fixated on regulating other people's behavior and - if only they could - thought keep plumping for laws that keep me from smoking in my office at the university.

For the record, I do not smoke and no longer occupy a university office, but they would if I did and I had [misquoted from Flanders and Swann].

^^^^

Suing the people for amending the constitution by stating they had no right to do so.... what could go wrong with that?

^^^^^

Sure, I have no issue with the overturning of specific laws on the basis that they are unconstitutional, as in what happened in Loving v. Virginia. I may not agree with the outcome (I certainly do agree with the outcome in Loving v. Virginia, as I am one half of a interracial couple), but the legal process is sound.

I take issue with the idea that a Federal Court can make a ruling in relation to an amendment to a state constitution. It would seem to me that the inconsistency rule does not apply in this case (as it does not relate to legislation but to matters of the Constitution), perhaps a constitutional expert around here can enlighten me if I am wrong (as I am mostly familiar with my own Country's Constitution).

not all christians are fixated on homosexuality. a great many support gay rights. the title question of this thread is very general, i agree, but i can sympathize with the OP because the people who decided we needed to constitutionally protect "marriage" from being accessed by same-sex couples were christians and much (if not all) of the reasoning they used was biblical. when it wasn't biblical, it amounted to "if we let them get married, our kids might think it's ok to be that way.

you are very correct in pointing out the problem of generalizing "all christians" as bigoted homophobes. if only more christians would stand up among themselves and do the same, people like the specific man i was responding to will realize that you don't all think homosexuality is the same as rape and murder.

loving v. virginia was incredibly controversial, in it's time. it's nice of you to point out that you're fine with a federal court repealing/blocking legislation that would negatively affect you while still maintaining your disapproval of granting that same lack-of-interference to others.

democracy, as is true of most worthwhile endeavors, is a work in progress. i find your own country's preferential voting to be a great idea and i hope we can adopt something similar here, someday. just one example of the ongoing struggle to improve reality.

to be fair, a lot of Muslims fixate on homosexuality too.

to be fair, a lot of Muslims fixate on homosexuality too.

I am against the sale of Semi-Automatic Weapons but if it is part of the constitution then I would not agree with a court ruling on that amendments constitutional validity (I said as much in my last post). In order to change it the people would have to decide. But I am against same sex marriage, you are correct in that.

Then who should rule on the validity of a constitutional amendment?

The people and the people only.... thats kind of the point. The Constitution exists to provide the legal framework upon which decisions by courts can be made, and the powers that Governments can use on behalf of the people to make legislation. All institutions, by definition draw legitimacy from the Constitution. Allowing any single branch of Government to have a say on the validity of the document represents the cannibalism of the system. This is not a fringe position, it is constitutional law 101.