Why homosexuality is such a threat to fundamentalist Christianity

[Az]

Sin. It has to do with the concept of Sin. Sin is the deliberate choice to turn away from God. It has to be a choice because in order for the sentence of eternal damnation to be just it must be the result of a deliberate choice to turn away from God. Anything less leaves God open to accusations of being unjust.

Jesus at no time says anything about homosexuality in the bible. Instead the primary verses that make mention of homosexuality come initially from the Old Testament.

Lev.18:22
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Lev.20:13
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

There are many laws in the OT that are no longer followed by Christians. But there is also a verse in the New Testament that makes mention of homosexuality as well. Or so it is believed.

Rom.1:26-27
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature. And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

The problem with these of course is that they do not match what is being found in science. Studies are showing that homosexuality is perfectly natural. It is a effect of the wiring of the brain. It is no more a choice than whether we like ice cream. Sexual identity is a realization and not a choice.

This of course goes counter to what the bible states as it is often (not always) interpreted. Typically when science and faith spar they remain in their own areas of expertise. As Stephen Gould suggested they each had their area of Magesteria that did not overlap. There have been conflicts in areas such as evolution and the origins of the world. But these do not sit at the heart of what the religion claims. That it has authority on matters of morality. Science tends to stay clear of that particular zone of control.

And this is where the conflict arises. Science is undermining a moral claim of some Christian views. If homosexuality is not the result of a choice then it cannot be a sin. If it is not a sin then why is it claimed as such in the bible? If it is a sin but not a choice then is it not unjust to condemn them for being who they are?

The issue of homosexuality strikes at the very core of Christian ideology. Unlike evolution which in reality is just a sidebar to the faith, homosexuality calls into question the bible and god's domain of moral authority.

There are of course ways around this matter for the fundamentalists. Liberals have already figured it out. The verses in question are open to interpretation. Their history and the culture they come from leave questions which allow compassion rather than adherence to old ideas to hold sway. But fundamentalists being the fixated sort they are will be unlikely to grasp this and will continue to fight homosexuality because they don't think they have any choice. They are part of a system of belief that has worked itself up into a frenzy trying to hold back the idea that they may not have a grasp of the singular unquestionable moral doctrine. To them homosexuality must be a choice. It must be corruption. It must be evil. Or everything they believe is in danger.

[silverojo]

1. No, it's just because they're bigoted pricks.

You're overanalyzing these extremely simple minds that think only in black and white.

[RTBerry]

25. Bingo.

The hate stems from social indoctrination, while biblical rationalization is tacked on later.

[Orsino]

33. Yes. Homosexuality doesn't "strike at the very core of Christianity."

It undermines male privilege by "lowering" men to the level to which women have been relegated. It blurs lines that fragile male egos rely on for their comfort. It calls into question that last bastion of lower-class men, who can still tell themselves, "At least I'm not a woman."

[eridani]

2. "Sin" is a self referential term

It's like saying that sea water is salty because it has the principle of salinity. The real reason is that traditional morality (of the last 5000 years or so anyway) is firmly rooted in mass murder and genocide. Note the promise to Abraham--as many descendents as there are grains of sand. And where are all those grains of sand supposed to live? The next chapters give all the gory details of successful and partially successful genocide campaigns. (Except that they get to keep the girl children that have not known men for themselves.)

But it won't work unless women are always cranking out babies, especially male ones to be the cannon fodder, and are devalued in every other way. Homosexuality threatens that arrangement. As does female control of reproduction. "Pro-life" means as many kids possible for your family, and mass murder of other peoples' kids to give yours the lebensraum.

[judasdisney]

3. In warped "Bible reality", they must battle their own homo feelings, or else be damned forever.

If you lived in a reality that said "Cold beverages are the root of all evil. If you drink one droplet of a cold beverage, you will be sent to a Lake Of Fire forever" then you'd have a big dilemma every time you got thirsty. And you'd constantly be divided. And you'd constantly be in turmoil, questioning yourself and reality.

It's simple. Bible Reality is warped, or at least warp-able.

[Beregond2]

4. You are technically correct, but here's the thing:

there are countless other examples of moral rules in the Bible that fundamentalists have no problem ignoring. The prohibition of divorce for example, which comes straight from Jesus. They have practically made divorce a requirement for membership. That is a much more significant rejection of the moral authority of the Bible.

So why single out this particular sin (homosexuality) for their special hatred? First, homosexuals are a small minority that they can easily sacrifice. Losing them costs them nothing except the occasional son or daughter who were pretty embarrasing anyway. So they can distract themselves from their own rank immorality by focussing on this out-group that no one likes anyway. And gays are very useful for their preachers, because nothing unites people like a common enemy. Keep them focussed on those nasty gays, and they won't notice you picking their pockets.

I seriously doubt there is one fundamentalist in a million who has parsed the issue as you have. They really don't care WHY they hate some people, so long as they are allowed to hate someone. For them, that is one of the main attractions of religion. That is why they focus so much on the Old Testament and the Apocalypse. They much prefer a God of judgement and violence to one of reconciliation and love.

[endthewar]

14. Divorce is still viewed adversely by many Christians

[Beregond2]

16. Of course. But you don't see them trying to deny divorced people the

right to marry do you? Or railing against them in church every Sunday? Besides, we are talking about fundamentalists, not Christians in general.

[WCGreen]

5. So christians wouldn't have a problem...

Rabbinical Jews, yes but Christians who were following a new way should have left the days of old behind.

But since all the fun stuff is back in the old testament, they keep getting sucked back in...

They ignore all that stuff at the temple and the money changers. That's the point where Jesus splits with the old and starts taking a new covenant.

[MichaelHarris]

6. Nawww

they think one of the babies may be the baby Jesus. They are so ready for the end times that they don't want to miss the opportunity.

[FlyingSquirrel]

7. Love thy neighbor as thyself?

Don't think I remember Jesus putting any qualifications on that one.

[Hissyspit]

8. Jesus says all kinds of things about homosexuality.

You can talk about something without naming it.

[No Elephants]

17. He said to love each other as we love ourselves. Do you mean things like that?

[regnaD kciN]

19. Well, there's the story of the healing of the centurion's servant...

Although most English translations smooth over the issue by having the centurion say that the servant was "very valuable to me," the actual Greek term is intimos -- intimate. Putting together what we know about practices in the Roman army, it seems likely that this "servant" was a young soldier who the older centurion had selected as his lover as well as his protege. Yet, when called upon, Jesus heals the "servant" without a word of condemnation about the relationship.

[Hissyspit]

21. Yes, but there is more than that.

In general, in the Gospels, Jesus didn't say much about sex, a bit more about marriage. He mentions 'sexual immorality' once, but is clearly referring in CORRECT Greek translations to having sex in pagan rituals.

It's the larger implications in what he says or does.

Matthew 19:10-12 - "he disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husand and wife, it is better not to marry." Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage in order to obtain the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept this."

Not to mention, one trying to garner guidance to behavior toward others and especially the establishment of law, should look to Jesus' behavior toward others - his treatment of the Centurion and his boy-servent, and in particular his interaction toward the Samaritan woman at the well.

And then there is "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground."

His philosophies were all about TOLERANCE, even BEYOND TOLERANCE.

Fundamentalists are equivalent to the Pharisees - modern hypocrites.

Of course, as an atheist, I am skeptical that Jesus of Nazareth existed. If he did, then it is questionable how much that is said that he said he actually said, or said the way it is reported. Scholars have established that many quotes were added later to the Gospels. But even taking it literally, modern-day fundamentalists don't really care about what he was saying, only in using it to support their particular prejudices.

[RagAss]

26. "Tolerance even Beyond Tolerance"... excellent...

This points to the acceptance of "non-doership" in the human experience.
Nobody does anything. Everything just happens.

[Orsino]

34. What did he say about it? n/t

[JohnMcCant2008]

9. OP - You put WAY more thought into that one post than most fundamental christians put into..

their entire belief set. You give them more credit than they are due.

[quaker bill]

10. Eating shellfish

is also an abomination, per leviticus, but you don't see much of a political movement over shrimp consumption.

There is much more to it than Bible quotes.

Your analysis is far too simplistic. There is no formulation of fact or circumstance in regard to sexual orientation that would or even could place "everything they believe" in danger. Think about it, there is a vast array of evidence for an earth vastly older than 6000 years, and a process of evolution. I cannot imagine how one could stack up sufficient evidence in this quantity and quality for propositions in regard to the "naturalness" of same gender orientation. Further, even if you could, there is overwhelming evidence the fundamentalists would proceed as they always have regardless.

Same gender orientation and sexuality in general is more correctly understood as having been intentionally placed at the very core of Christian ideology with intent and purpose. Read the Bible and you will note a vast number of passages where the community and individual are called upon to assist the poor, hungry, sick, widowed, and orphaned, without regard to their country of origin or relative moral cleanliness.

[regnaD kciN]

20. Please note that "abomination" != "sin"...

The two are completely different categories. A "sin" is a violation of God's moral law, while an "abomination" is a violation of the laws of purity or cleanliness. That is why, for example, homosexual sex is grouped with wearing a garment woven of two different fabrics or sowing a field with two different crops, rather than murder or theft.

[No Elephants]

11. I don't buy it. Murder is also sin, as is lying, but heteros on death row can get a

marriage license, and so can Republicans.

But seriously...

The Bible says little about homosexuality in comparison to other sins, such as greed, lying, not tithing, not giving alms, not judging others, etc. Yet, the rush for Constitutional amendments has nothing to do with lying, giving alms or being judgmental.

This is the one "sin" the majority of people are not at all tempted to commit. So, they get more self-righteous about this one than any other. JMO>

[cjsmom44]

12. RE: Fundies

I grew up in a Fundie family...You have explained the issue well here....I understand the fundies..you might say I am a recovering "adult child" of a dysfunctional Fundamentalist Family. The problem lies in the Fundamentalist belief that the exact wording of the Bible is the ultimate word of God...with no exceptions...NONE....Seems nutty I know...but that is how it is...only black and white thinking. They believe that anyone who dares question that ultimate word of God (or exact wording of the Bible) will be sent to HELL...yup the big fiery place. Unfortunately, they do not even consider that the wording of the Bible was made during a time in history, where social mores where in a totally different place...It is like the Fundies are still living in a time warp...They are passionate about their beliefs to the point that they alienate family members, bring their beliefs into the political realm and which ultimately threaten separation of church and state... Don't get me wrong I am glad we live in a country where people can believe as they wish, but in the case of the Fundies .....they will force their beliefs down your throat if they get the chance, because they believe that is what the Bible tells them to do...So I understand the Fundies, better than the average person...they are insane..

[No Elephants]

15. So, why do we not have movements to amend the constitution to require almsgiving?

[polichick]

13. You mean it's not because there are so many closet fundies, and they're...

...afraid of themselves?

[regnaD kciN]

18. Actually, I think you're missing the point...

First of all, if you (correctly) define "fundamentalist" Christians as those who follow, consciously or unconsciously, "The Fundamentals" (the series of tracts published at the beginning of the 20th Century -- which is where "fundamentalism" got its name), you'll find that, historically, homosexuality was not a big issue on their radar screens until recently, whereas evolution was. The reason for that is that "The Fundamentals" differed from mainstream Christianity in insisting on the inerrancy of the Bible -- its literal truth in every respect. For the fundamentalist, there is no such thing as Gould's "two magisteria." The words of the Bible are supreme over any other form of human knowledge; where there is conflict, the Bible must be recognized as correct and whatever conflicts with it as false. That is why, while mainstream Christianity has had little trouble with accepting the notion of "theistic evolution" (i.e. God created the world, but did so through evolution, with the first creation story in Genesis a poetic way of explaining that to people who did not yet have the means to understand the scientific process), for the fundamentalist, anything that suggests that the words of the Bible are not literally true must be fought against as a Satanic lie...for, as I have often had it explained to me by fundies, "if we cannot trust every word of the Bible, how can you trust any word of it?"

Nonetheless, why the obsession with homosexuality now? Well, the answer may be easy or hard to grasp, depending on how old you are, but, even a few decades ago, the vast majority of the American public (and, I would argue, the world as a whole), religious or secular, were united in what now seems like a truly bizarre revulsion with homosexuality. And I think a lot of it was based on reflexive and pre-rational (which would also mean pre-trying-to-apply-the-tenets-of-one's-religion) reaction, what I call the "ooh...that's gross" reflex when it came to thinking about anal sex. (No matter that, as I've often commented before, a visitor from another, more cerebral planet might just as well find heterosexual vaginal sex a particularly "icky" way to reproduce.) Since it was based on pre-rational reactions, it's not surprising that every dominant belief system in the world, whether religious or a secular belief-system such as Marxism-Leninism, managed to eventually incorporate a condemnation of homosexuality until quite recently.

So, what changed to allow it to be accepted by many if not most people now? I would think that psychological research that showed that being gay was neither a "choice" nor a "mental illness" went a long way toward clearing up some prejudices. But I think it was only the "GLBT movement" and mass numbers of people electing to "come out" that made the difference. It's one thing to pigeonhole a "homosexual" when all you associate with the term is an anonymous someone who practices a particular sex act you find distasteful. When, on the other had, a "gay man" (and, yes, I am singling out men here, because I don't recall lesbians as having the same degree of stigma as gays back when I was growing up -- which might also tie in with the notion that what was "disgusting" was the one particular sex act) is a friend, co-worker, or even family member, and one who seems quite "normal" and well-adjusted in every respect, it becomes a lot harder to stereotype.

But, while all that might be the case, how does it relate to fundamentalism? Well, to understand that, you have to recognize a particular shift in American fundamentalism that took place sometime before it was reborn (no pun intended) as the "religious right" of the televangelist world in the late 1970s. For most of the time preceding it, fundamentalists had little connection or concern with politics and popular culture. Putting it bluntly, many fundamentalists believed that the world would end soon anyway, and the only concern was in getting yourself "right with God" in time for the last judgment. But, sometime in the '70s -- and possibly in reaction to the decade that preceded it -- fundamentalism acquired a new, unofficial doctrine: the belief in America as the "new Chosen People," and the America of the past as the "City on a Hill" that was the embodiment, albeit an imperfect one, of the coming Kingdom of God. (I know...it sounds crazy to me, too.) In other words, a nostalgia for American culture of the '50s and earlier became the norm, and fundamentalists were called upon to help bring about the Kingdom by working to "turn back the clock" to that "simpler, more innocent time"...a time that included the old attitudes against homosexuality, as well as the "traditional role of women and the family," free-market capitalism, militarism, etc.

I could probably write a lot more about this, but it's almost 4:30 A.M., and I'm getting too tired to continue. Suffice it to say, I thik a lot of the homophobia expressed by fundamentalists is less due to it being "a matter of sin" in the abstract, as to it being "another sign of the decline of civilization from the Good Old Days." In other words, less strictly religious than cultural...and, thus, a natural feature of a neo-fundamentalism which somehow makes cultural tenets an essential part of their religion.

[apnu]

22. The real reason, as I see it, socially...

... has everything to do with the diminishing power of religious centers in Europe and America. The "church" (and I mean all religions when I say that Judaism and Islam included as well) does not control the state, and has less state power today than it did in the past. They don't run the show anymore. So to find a role in this new dominion, the "church" has appointed itself as the guardians of morality and community. Well, now as science and society advance, that role is diminishing as well. It is perfectly all right to be a moral human being w/out the framework of a religion.

And so the "church" is left to cast about and try to find a new role, or exert what little control it has left on the population. We're seeing the beginning of the end of religion as a major power in America right now. And, as we all know, a cornered, wounded animal fights the hardest before it dies.

[Hepburn]

23. Why I think this is in the Bible is because...

...they wanted MORE Christians. If guys are with guys ~~ that obviously does not make babies. So, IMO, they made that a big no-no. To me, it just smacks of part of the whole deal about taking over the world: No BC, no abortion, no homosexuality = more population for the Christian machine.

Maybe I am wrong...or maybe I am right...but it just seems to me that the whole thing is about Christians begetting more of the same and being gay does not do that for them.

:shrug:

I don't think that they saw this as one bit of sin ~~ if that were so and it was a HUGE deal, then there would have been Eleven Commandments. Seems to me that the Fundies sure make a hell of a lot more about this sending someone to hell than they do about lying or coveting, right?

[davidpdx]

24. The funny thing is I've never been either for or against people

who choose a partner of the same sex. I believe treating them like all other people is the most important thing. Most Christians are obsessed with going after people not like them. What you do in your bedroom is your business, period.

I've been lambasted on here occasionally because I am not 100% for gay marriage (maybe 50%), but I do feel the constant attacks on them are wrong. Some of the anti-gay ballot measures in my state have been downright nasty. Even though I'm overseas I always vote and vote against them. When one of them passed, I was just in utter shock.

[Bubbha Jo]

27. They simply hate it because it involves pleasurable sex

The homosexuality issue and the abortion one are the ones that get them riled up the most because they involve SEX. They believe they are told sex is only for procreation, not to be fun. They can't stand others having sex without fun (homosexual couples, no babies), which is their drive against these two issues.

If they have to feel guilty, SO DO YOU. It's that simple (and that stupid).

[olegramps]

28. In regard to marriage

Several people brought up marriage in this post. I would like to venture that I believe that no-one, except the state should be allowed to seal the contract. In Holland for example, people apply for a marriage license at which time they sign it and it is considered a contract. They can then choose to have the marriage blessed or whatever by anyone of their choosing. However, the important aspect of this is that no minister, judge, etc. can marry them, it is lawful contractual agreement. Look at our situation, it is in reality not much different, except in this aspect, in that the contractual agreement can not be nullified by a priest, minister, etc. that originally sealed it. It must be filed with the state in a court. It seems that it would be a simple solution to homosexuals wishing to enter into a contractual agreement. Leaving religion totally out of the picture. I would reserve the term marriage for what it has traditionally meant, the union of a man and women. There is a necessity for laws regarding this union that are especially written for the protection of children and women. There could be two separate contracts, one for those entering into a union with a person of the same sex and those for a traditional marriage of heterosexuals.

[olegramps]

29. By the way

The biggest threat that I have seen in regard to families isn't homosexuals, but divorce. I would think that if these so-called Christians are so concerned with the welfare of children they would be concentrating their efforts in this area. I am not a Catholic and I don't know much about there pre-marriage preparation these days, but I married a Catholic and we had to go to a series, this was over 45 years ago, called Pre-Cana in which couples were encouraged to deeply consider what they were getting into. They had priests talk, medical doctors, psychologists, and just plain married folks about how it wasn't going to be all hearts and flowers. Enough from ole gramps

[Unvanguard]

30. The "choice" debate is a false one.

The strict "sin" issue is not orientation but behavior. Yes, religious conservatives often further argue (quite wrongly, by all the scientific evidence) that non-heterosexuals can through their own effort change their orientation, but they need not argue any such thing to continue maintaining that the act of same-sex intercourse, which nobody doubts is a choice, is sinful.

The conflict here is not between religion and science, but between religion and any reasonable moral framework, which would conclude rather unequivocally that homosexuality is morally non-problematic, and that gays and bisexuals should be accepted fully into society and allowed to enter into relationships with all the rights and recognition that opposite-sex couples get.

This is the problem with Gould's notion that religion and science have rightfully separate spheres: the places that Gould allocates to religion could be much better handled by rational philosophy, here ethics.

As for why religious fundamentalists are so offended by homosexuality, I don't think it has anything to do with science, which contradicts their worldview in other, even more fundamental respects. I'd suggest instead that their own words on the subject are indicative: what they find threatening about homosexuality is its undermining of the notion of the traditional family, with that institution's strict allocation of roles on the basis of gender and its pretensions of being the only "natural" and appropriate way to live.

[Bluenorthwest]

31. Two Rules For Sister Sarah

And the rest of the religious bigots, in both Parties. As you say, they have only two sets of 'scripture' to back them up, Leviticus and Paul's letters.
I expect those who push a code of law at me to follow that code themselves. If one quotes Leviticus at me, I expect that they will follow the rules in that book as well. Bristol and Levi should be dealt with according to those laws. The unclean abomination that is the crab industry in Alsaska is an entire industry based on providing abominations to the world. Palin herself needs to be living by the rules for ritual bathing, the rules of dress, hair, and money. Willow should be up for sale to Canadians and Russians as well as any American takers. Sorry to mention the kids but such is the law of Moses. It is the law that Palin pushes at me, but does not follow in any way herself.
Now about those Pauline books. According to Paul, women should remain silent in the congregation. They should avoid make-up and adornments and they should always remain submissive to the male leadership. He goes on and on about this stuff. And yet Palin speaks in Chuch and in public, speaking to men in the most unbecoming ways, wearing finery and promoting the use of lipstick and the drinking of beer. Her every action is against the rules of Paul, and of Moses.
So first they need to walk the walk. But they don't, and that is the point. They focus on others, not on themselves. Jesus taught the opposite. They pray for in public and out loud, Jesus said only fakes do that, and said to pray only in private. The so called christians you speak of, they do not follow even the words of the Christ. They don't want to. He spoke of personal accountability, fiedelity, honesty and always, always of standing up for the very least among us.
The book of Acts shows us how the friends of Jesus lived. They practiced an ethic that had to do with sharing all holdings. They had been taught that one can not serve God and money and to forgive all so called 'sin' in others instantly, as they themselves hope to be forgiven.
So any anti-gay Fundy who does not live up to the fucking rules in the same chapter and Book they quote to others is basically the very antithesis of the teachings of Christ.
They speak about my family only to avoid self inspection. They impose rules on others in order to avoid living by the rules that have so clearly been given to them about money and the treatment of others. The very act of speaking out against another is in essence a denial of Christ. In their terms, they are the ones with a plank in the eye. They are the ones who throw the first stone that the teacher himself refused to hurl, he who they say was without 'sin'.
In short, they point fingers at my family to avoid looking at their own.
So Sarah and her religionist bigot siblings of the faith, understand that if you do not live by Leviticus you have no standing to quote that book to anyone. If you reject Paul when the rules don't fit your agenda, you have no right at all to impose his rules upon me. Sarah could eat kosher, keep herself from Todd while she is 'unclean', close the abomination industry in Bristol Bay, keep her head always covered, sit down and shut the fuck up, and then I'd consider her 'faith' to be a real thing, not a mere tool of oppression.
They speak of sex to avoid speaking of money. They speak of me to avoid speaking about themselves. They use the divine as a tool of their own personal agenda.
I say live by it or shut up about it. How hard should that be? Crab is an abomination, and I invite the Gov of Alaska to prove her faith by closing that abomination down at once. Or on the other hand she can admit that such laws are of no real meaning to her.
Rule One: Quote Leviticus only if you live by Levitical law yourself.
Rule Two: Qoute Paul only if you live by all of Paul's rule yourself.

[IndianaJones]

32. the "homosexuality is immoral" view is held by our nominee ya know. nt.

[Starry Messenger]

36. .

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/03/15/obama-echoes-clinton-on-morality-and-gays/

[IndianaJones]

38. Obama: religious traditions behind my objection to gay marriage.

from his book.

[Starry Messenger]

39. And I totally hate his position on that.

I'm an atheist and pro-human rights. I want to see lots of happy weddings in our future for all our friends.

[Bluenorthwest]

40. Yeah. His fake religion.

The Old Testament is pro-slavery. The new says women should remain silent in the gatherings. Does Michelle follow the rules for ritual purity as demanded by Leviticus? Of course not. Do they eat kosher, wear blended fabric? Obama keeps his hair cut in a Levitically sinful way.

According to the New Testament, accoding to Jesus himself, the McCain marriage is unlawful, and the word used to describe men who leave a wife and take another is 'whoremonger'. The word Jesus used for the likjes of Cindy is 'whore'. The Old Testament punishment for adultery- such as picking up Cindy in a bar 'cause your wife limped- is death. I hear nothing from Obama about his religious objections to McCain, who is the very picture of one who has 'put away a wife' for all the wrong reasons.
Let Mr and Mrs Obama live by the rules he claims to respect so much. Let him call out McCain according to his 'traditions'. Why only GLBT people? Why not the 'sins' of the heterosexual families? Why not the sins, to be direct, of John and Cindy McCain?

[saltpoint]

35. Hi, Az. What strikes me about most of the fundamentalists who

are so ardently opposed to homosexuality tend toward being people who most definitely do not have your command of THEIR Bible.

They don't have your range and they don't have your critical eye. A fire-belching pastor stands at the lectern in their churches on Sundays and writhes and slithers over "sin," and they take his condemnations at face value and go out and vote for anti-same-sex initiatives coast to coast. No critical thinking ever enters these people's formula. In large numbers, they seem constitutionally incapable of reading their own texts.

It's interesting that in the late 70s when Anita Bryant was on her anti-gay crusade in south Florida, there was active speculation that it would not only jeopardize her career as spokesperson for the Florida orange juice industry but also destroy her marriage.

Both came to pass.

Palin is almost certainly a choice made by fundamentalist power brokers who in effect told McCain to choose her or if not her, then someone with the nutbags' seal of approval, or face a de facto boycott at the polls in November. He wanted Ridge or Lieberman but is handed Secessionist Barbie.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

37. It's Patriarchy. Man must dominate woman.

Women and children are property to be disposed of as the men see fit. If men marry men and women marry women, then how will people know who the owners are and who is property?