It’s not the words alone that are equated to hostility but the actions that accompany the oral sentiments.

The “don’t say gay” legislation that threaten the existence of straight-gay alliances in schools and would forbid any kind of sex education that could be construed as addressing the “HOMOSEXUAL LIFESTYLE” specifically with regards to safe sex.

And more legislation that would prohibit the recognition of any kind of domestic relationship other than heterosexual marriage. Such attempts have one goal, to restrict recognition of those involved in the “HOMOSEXUAL LIFESTYLE”. Unfortunately the same legislation would not recognize single parent households, unmarried couples with or without children or any other form of domestic cohabitation, gender identity not-withstanding.

So intense is the religous homophobia that attempts to exclude it must also punish those who identify as heterosexual.

Then there are those who continue to insist that some quasi-psychological treatment along with some Bible study will help homosexuals to “pray-away-the-gay” at the same time those who practice their pseudoscience, are ignoring the actual damage they inflict by their homophobia.

And then there is the would-be legislation that would prohibit gays & lesbians from raising children – even their own.

Not ONE of those – or of many more – would exist were it not for the millions of Christians who believe as they do.

On the other hand, there are many who live the “HOMOSEXUAL LIFESTYLE” who are also Christian – to them I apologize because they are disadvantaged two-fold, not only must they explain why Christian values do not have to be that irrational, but they must also fight against those irrational views.



Once again there is an assumption that the source of conflict stems from words – without acknowledging the actions that accompany those words.

Here again we can look at the types of legislation that a great number of Christians support.

Bullying is ok, as long as there is a religious reason behind it – which also happens to be the view that is taken to deny schools the ability to incorporate programs that would prevent bullying. Such programs – of course- would have to create a climate of inclusion, in part, by teaching about gays & lesbians in history, or in current events, as real people of value and importance.



Actually, it’s not the visibility that is most noticeable, but the irrational behaviors. In addition to what I’ve already posted,
there are those who continue attempts to pass legislation that would either prohibit the teaching of evolution (and other sciences) unless there were a more “balanced” view to include some form of creationist view.

There are issues about abortion, specifically kept alive through Christian beliefs, and now there has been proposed legislation that would count a woman’s pregnancy from the day after her last period – which could make her pregnant even before she had sex.

And the legislation that attempts to attribute personhood, with full legal human rights, to a zygote.

And there are many Christians, including some very powerful figures, who maintain that climate change is a hoax, simply because their study of the Bible suggests that God would not allow humans to destroy His cherished creations.

And the legislation that would make it a felony for a woman to do anything that would harm her unborn child, meaning that any miscarriage or stillbirth would require investigation. And, it would certainly have to make the morning after pill illegal – wouldn’t it.

Even more irrational is the fact that the same people trying to adopt such legislation, also support corporations like Monsanto, Dupont, and continue to allow carcinogens, toxins, and other chemicals in the products that no doubt cause miscarriages, congenetal disease, and cancers and other birth defects.

And there is legislation that would make all abortion illegal, without regard to safety or health of either mother or the unborn.

AND THEN, there is the even more irrational – abortion would be illegal, except to save the mother.
That’s pretty darn irrational considering previous ideas of pre-sex pregnancies and zygote personhood.

I can only apologize that such people ever find their way into power – but they didn’t get there unsupported.

Tolerance and even acceptance is always easier to extend when there are grand scale measures of inclusiveness and less likely to occur when words take shape through behaviors intended to exclude.

terrible option

there is actually a term for that which is disgusting but I dont remember it,, I remember in camp a few guys (none of which were particularly religious as I remember) stood up in a meeting to actually say they were going to go out that night and hunt for homosexuals,,,,,


,I think decent people anywhere would find that behavior disgusting, whatever their religious or non religious beliefs,,,

alot here but I will try to address how common these issues are to both sides

1. as a christian, I may not even want a school teaching my kid about sex in the first place, in which case I can choose (like an atheist) to opt out and teach them what I want, how I want to, at home.

my personal view is that sex education does not have to include information on EVERY variation of sex, it only needs to explain how to not catch disease or where babies come from, , there is no NEED to address it as homosexual because the parts are the same regardless of the relationship,,MALE FEMALE,,,Vaginal or ANAL or oral,,,,

bringing sexual preference into it only forces parents children to be exposed to things which they may have no other reason to be exposed to,,,,children, regardless of sexual preference, do well to know where babies come from and know about the PARTS of the male or female human body.

I see it as more shoving sexual preference down impressionable kids throats to insist that homosexual be mentioned in a sex education class. Sex, Male , and Female along with the anatomy is really all thats relevant and common to EVERYONE.

2. The law doesnt forbid me from any relation I want. The law also does nothing to promote or encourage me to make the CHOICE to raise a child without a father, or to marry someone with the same parentage, than it promotes the choice of a homosexual to raise children with only one gender to guide them or to marry someone with the same anatomy.


I dont feel 'punished' because the law doesnt see my situation with EXACTLY the same privileges (or responsibilities) as those who have committed to each other before creating and raising a child together. THat is something that should continue to be encouraged as the most IDEAL gift we can give children for their foundation in a growingly complicated world.

3. As a christian, I can be prevented from raising my child if the other parent has more money or more resources because of the 'balance' that culture has legislated as expected or healthy for a child, much like the balance of mother and father that culture determines to be healthy for a child is often argued to try to deny homosexual pairings form raising children.

I dont agree with preventing people by law from raising there children for any reason but abuse. Im sure many atheists agree with me. Im also equally sure that there are many atheists who also arent too supportive of the idea of father father child rearing or mother mother child rearing. Although those who would oppose a biological parents right to raise a child must be the extreme on either side.

4. As a christian, it troubles me that people try to force the notion that humans are 'unchangable' in any character trait, tendency, preference or whatever, the same way it troubles non christians when the notion is forced that things like homosexuality CAN indeed be changed.

I believe before there were millions of christians, before there was a bible, there were people who believed those things or they would never have written them down. I believe its false logic to assume those particular objections are the effect of religion in isolation as opposed to culture, environment, and any other number of factors that help build an individuals 'values' as they grow and experience life. WE never hear people 'blame' christians for legislation against murder even though its a pretty specific CHRISTIAN doctrine. BUt people often 'blame' christians for any other restrictive legislation if they are able to find it anywhere in a bible. As if people would not possibly hold those values and opinions without religion.

5.As a christian, I often wonder why history only teaches about the 'good stuff' our founders achieved and doesnt mention any of their less than desirable actions or behaviors, to the point where they are REVERED even though they were no more or less flawed than any other person. I dont know that history really deals in sexual preference even of heterosexuals unless to mention whom someone was married to, nor do I understand what sexual preference would have to do with studying achievements.

Who a person is is not wrapped up in their sexual preference or their dietary preference or their taste in music. Giving people credit in history for their accomplishments does not require wrapping their identity up in those labels anymore than sexual preference has anything to do with what one has accomplished, unlike race or gender which are harder to hide 'in a closet' so to speak and out in the open for all to see and put obstacles up against. ANd bulling also doesnt require going into peoples preferences. Bullying is about behavior, it only needs to be addressed as an unhealthy and unfavorable behavior. The root cause of bullying is 'difference' of any type and that covers all subcategories of the bullied like smart kids, poor kids, fat kids, homeless kids, homosexual kids,,etc. ITs universal enough without making it ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY.

6. Behavior has to be visible to determine that its 'irrational'. Christians are highly exposed. What atheists do doesnt have quite the same open exposure. How often do you hear a news piece where they even mention someones affiliation with religion UNLESS they are religious? All those times its not mentioned at all, its possible those people are atheists but it isnt CALLED OUT in the same manner as it is for 'religious'.


in any case,, my point was only to say that we are all flawed, and we could all do to be more aware of whether we are addressing behaviors or just insulting humans,,,whatever our beliefs,,,

you may not know any but dowm here in the south theres plenty,i've heard it numerous of times God and jesus is in you and all of us.So walk in my shoes and you'll take back your remark.Also i don't give atheist a bad name cause i make remarks about Jesus or God.It's what i know.They have churches,atheist have a voice.It's people like you making comments like you did that give atheist a bad name cause if one speaks up it's wrong.Tell that to Dawkins or Harris they will say you give atheist a bad name.

how bout you look in the religion forum and read my post then it'll answer your list.

You know what I say when an atheist says "Allah be with you?" I say "He must be an invisible pervert, because I just came out of the bathroom!"

What? Atheists don't believe in Allah?

Okay...

You know what I say when an atheist says "Steven Hawkins created the universe?" I say "He must have done a crappy job, because he's stuck in a wheel chair!"

What's that? I am not giving an accurate representation of what atheists believe and my jokes are not only unfunny, they are also mean-spirited? That's because you are a Darwin freak, of course you would say that.

see to me thats funny and i take no offense.You can rip on atheist all you want i just didn't like the engineer typing i give atheist a bad name.

Oh by the way Darwin was a christian..just sayin.It's his theories that some accept.

Darwin wasn't a Christian. Unless by "Darwin", you don't mean "Charles", you mean "Emma".

he was a christian until he started questioning the bible.he went to church and all that stuff.So technically i can't be a darwins freak cause he once believed in the myth,i never did.Call me a Dawkins freak instead.

darwin freak? it's comments like that that set you jeasus freaks back 200 years... get with the times, evolution is fact, not theory...

For one I am not an atheist. I say you give atheist a bad name because you are being rude, disrespectful, and condescending. I am from the south. You don't get much more south than Louisiana and Texas. The Christians that believe Jesus dwells inside of people believe he is on your heart if you invite him in. Thus an atheist wouldn't have that. Now they would say he loves you. The true point is one should respect another's belief even if it differs from your own. You can't prove that the religion is a myth BTW.

There was a little voice in my head that said "Don't use sarcasm and absurdity to make a point, they won't get it." But then I once again went against my better judgement and tried to illustrate the absurd through absurdity and here we are...

it's hard to note sarcasm on the internet...

you are going by YOUR experience.mine is totally different i have heard it and read it.And religion isn't a myth,God is.Religion is real unfortunately.

How could any person who knew ANYTHING about atheism think that an atheist would say "Allah be with you" or think that atheists believe that Steven Hawkings created the universe? Really, did you read my post at all? The internet is no excuse in this case. If you couldn't get the sarcasm from that post, you just weren't going to get it.

Many would disagree that God is a myth. If that is your belief that is fine. But stop pretending it is a stayement of fact. There is no basis for that belief exceptactually having that belief.

Sarcasm isn't what I thought when I read your post. It seemed like you were trying to be funny, but just missed the mark.

in order for it not to be a myth, there has to be some kind of physical evidence. there is none with "god".... god is a myth, unless there is some proof to his existence... not taking sides here, just pointing out a fact....

Just like those who believe in god should stop pretending it's a fact he exists?