"Evangelicals". I have a question for you.

[Big ned]

I'm not evangelical, but I am religious.

I think in the evangelical religion they really take the "call people to repentance" thing seriously.
I also think there is something to the "focus on the sin that you don't committ" thing as well.
I think there are a very fringe few who actually "hate" homosexuals. Like the baptist sect down in Texas or where ever they are. Most religious people I know may not agree with the actions of gay society, but don't hate anyone because of it. That isn't what Christ taught. I am not perfect and therefore it is not my place to judge anyone.

I know that part of it must be the gay agenda that is pushed frequently by the radical edge of the gay community. Quite simply.... if you attack someone's belief system, you will get push back.

[RR24K]

What 2 consenting adults do with each other is none of the churches business. To answer your question evangelicals feel they are the moral police of human conduct and behavior.

[NAB]

What 2 consenting adults do with each other is none of the churches business. To answer your question evangelicals feel they are the moral police of human conduct and behavior.

It would be nice if the reverse of that were also true roadrunner.

Nab

[steven lloyd]

But then a lot of Freud's speculative thinking has been extensively debunked anyway.

As an aside to the discussion at hand, it is true that much of Freud’s “speculative thinking” has been extensively debunked. In fact, Freud himself recanted on many of his hypotheses in his later work. However, the one major contribution to modern psychology which has stood the test of time and still remains the groundwork in psychological intervention is idea of the subconscious mind influencing behaviour. This includes the concepts of psychological defence mechanisms such as rationalization, justification, minimization, projection, deflection and denial (to name a few). We have gotten rid of the idea that all girls have penis envy, however.

[steven lloyd]

What 2 consenting adults do with each other is none of the churches business. To answer your question evangelicals feel they are the moral police of human conduct and behavior.

It would be nice if the reverse of that were also true roadrunner.

Nab

Good point.

[hellomynameis]

I've never met a Evangelical that directly "fears" homosexuals but about 90% of them have negative emotions that could very well be called fear regarding the after effects of liberalizing our society. It probably doesn't help their image (or legitimacy) that homosexual issues (marriage, parades) seem to be their goto example.

Also, to a man they profess to love homosexuals just as much as heterosexuals, they just seem to view the subject of rights and legal status in a different (biblical morality) light.

I think they are very misguided when they do that.

[sooperphreek]

the thing i applaud about in reading this thread is that i dont think any evangelicals have taken the time to even justify this thread. and the other hilarity is the conjecture and theories that non evangelicals are making in the place of that. i was raised an evangelical and am not going to church anymore as an adult. but the interesting thing is - as homosexuals are more and more accepted in society it seems that they are more and more confrontational with anyone who is uncomfortable with their lifestyle. its gone from leave us alone and mind your own business to hey im gonna get in your face and make my lifestyle YOUR business. this in your face attitude goes against all the founding fathers of gay and lesbian rights activists. even that milk guy who was championed in film by the liberal movie industry. he wasnt in your face to be a *bleep*. he was in your face for his rights. gays and lesbians in canada have it very good. in spite of how persecuted *bleep* feel they are by evangelicals. so why are so many so confrontational? the distaste for *bleep* in the bible is very simple. family core in ancient times was paramount. big family.....better earning potential. you could survive and make a living. but if you waste your time banging the same sex.....no kids. (it wasnt like today where ted and fred could go in and get an abandoned crack baby and adopt it. or like tina and gina using a turkey baster and having a baby.) which means no income potential. and your family will be hamstrung. who knows....maybe homosexual propaganda and acceptance is the nature of things. the next step in evolution. same sex and less kids. less strain on society and governments and then less wars. hell it could be a good thing. then the battle royale and the predjudice will become males versus females. and in that war seeing as i am married....i chose the b itches.

[chickenlittle]

Read a very good argument by some cross denominational/religion (christian, jewish, buddist) think tank once. They felt that the definition of homosexuality had changed a great deal since Biblical times. They argued (rather convincingly) that the Biblical prohibition on homosexulaity was not directed at two people of the same sex in a comitted long term relationship but rather at casual homosexual acts (which they claim were not uncommon at the bath houses and such of the time). I read this way back in the early 1990s and have been unsuccesful at digging it up. There main point of their argument is that the Bible, if interpreted from the viewpoint of the audience it was written for is critical of sex outside of a long term relationship whether it be same sex or otherwise is sinful.

I am an Evangelical Christian (not a fundamentalist or a Biblical Literalist) and I do not fear homosexuals. I have a number of good friends who are openly gay. I will not pretend I do not struggle with the question of whether or not homsexual acts are right or wrong. I do know that if they are wrong, they are no more wrong than any of the other behavior described as sinful in the Bible. If we are all sinners (and I believe we are) how can I possible hold myself out as being a "better" person than someone with a different sexual orientation than my own? The answer is that I cannot.

I do not think ( yes steven lloyd, I have changed my position on this subject) that the Bible's referrences to homosexuality are as easy to interpret as many Christians seem to believe.

[Mr. Personality]

I don't understand why homosexuals feel the need to be a part of religions whose belief is that homosexuality is wrong.

If, for example, Catholocism says homosexuality is wrong, you can't be a gay Catholic. It just doesn't work. If you're going against a teaching of the religion you're not really of that religion, are you?

[Glacier]

I don't understand why homosexuals feel the need to be a part of religions whose belief is that homosexuality is wrong.

If, for example, Catholocism says homosexuality is wrong, you can't be a gay Catholic. It just doesn't work. If you're going against a teaching of the religion you're not really of that religion, are you?

Why do you have to follow ALL the rules to belong to a club? ie. not every NDP supporter adheres to all the rules set out by the party brass. Same goes with Conservative, Liberal, Green, etc.

[Mr. Personality]

I'm fairly certain homosexuality is a sin in most christian religions.

Obviously with free will we can all do whatever we want regardless of religious / political ideology or even law. Thing is, with "no homosexuality" being a pretty basic teaching, why would homosexuals even belong to these "clubs"? There was a time when the want for divorce was a good enough reason to start a new branch of religion, not change the core beliefs of the old one. To me, if a religion has such a base teaching against something I am totally for, I'm obviously not down with that religion.

Make sense?

[hellomynameis]

Kind of except everyone in the club is a sinner, why only pick on the gay ones?

[sooperphreek]

ok....now we are getting into a moral dimension here. every body sins so homosexuality isnt so bad cuz we all arent perfect. blah blah blah. but what about looking at it from a scientific standpoint. existence of the species slant. if you dont procreate because you are wasting bullets on the same sex or the legs are crossed too tight except for the same sex....then we go extinct. see homosexuals rail at the heteros and talk about how persecuted they feel. but without heterosexuality.....you wouldnt even be able to wake up in the morning and make your choice to be who you are. because if it wasnt for heterosexuality you wouldnt be here. hey....im just sayin.....

[hellomynameis]

Huh? Are you attaching immorality to the inability to procreate due to sexual bias? What?

I believe the Canadian census puts our population at 0.2% homosexual and in reality it is perhaps slightly more if you give room for closet homosexuals, not exactly a threat to our procreation needs. Also, not only can gay couples fill a social niche by adopting instead of procreating but current “scientific” means allow for lesbian couples to have a baby.

Oh and homosexuals don't rail at the “heteros”, a small group of them rail against the inequality that they are subject to and also against those that perpetuate an/or otherwise support maintaining that inequality. What a crime...

[steven lloyd]

but what about looking at it from a scientific standpoint.

Great! Let us know when you’re ready to start.

if you don’t procreate because you are wasting bullets on the same sex or the legs are crossed too tight except for the same sex....then we go extinct.

Evolutionary scientists suggest that as a genetic survival mechanism more homosexuals are produced during times of global stress so that reduced reproduction of the species would occur placing less demand on the planet's resources (yes, look it up and research it – you learn better that way).

see homosexuals rail at the heteros and talk about how persecuted they feel. but without heterosexuality.....you wouldnt even be able to wake up in the morning and make your choice to be who you are. because if it wasnt for heterosexuality you wouldnt be here. hey....im just sayin.....

Homosexuals don’t rail at the heteros and talk about how persecuted they feel because they’re ungrateful for being born. In fact they don’t rail against heteros in general at all – just the ignorant, prejudicial homophobes like yourself who wouldn’t recognize science if you dropped acid on your pee pee.

Ya, let’s look at it from a scientific standpoint.
Like you have a hope of participating in that discussion.