California to investigate Mormon aid to Prop 8

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Extelleron

I don't see anything anywhere about state-sponsored gay marriage being an un-alienable right. Gay couples, like anyone in America, have a right to be together and do what they wish among themselves. The government, however, does not have to endorse that activity or broaden the definition of marriage to include it.

Then where do you see the right for inter-racial couples to get government to endorse their marriage and broaden th definition of marriage to include it? Do you?

There has never been anything wrong with inter-racial marriage, it is the same marriage between a man and a woman as with same-race couples. The bigots and idiots of the early 20th century and before were the ones keeping it from happening.

Gay marriage is different, it is a complete redefining of what marriage is and how we consider it - going from a traditional marriage between a man and a woman to where marriage is a loose term describing any sort of relationship between two people.

Sorry, no. Let's use your own language, and you tell me where it's off.

I don't see anything anywhere about state-sponsored inter-racial marriage being an un-alianable right. Inter-racial couples, like anyone in America, have a right to be together and to be what they wish among themselves. The government, however, does not have to endorse that activity or broaden the definition of marriage to include it.

Now, you tell me how that argument is wrong, but not wrong about gay marriage.

I don't want to hear your baseless conclusions about 'well that's just wrong' that have you abandoning the logic you want to apply to gay marriage, to evade the issue.

Either use the logic, or don't. Your 'there has never been anything wrong with' statement is totally 'illogical', and can easily be applied to gay marriage as well.

You throw around a lot of words carelessly, like the phrase "loose term" to refer to gay marriage. How is equality for inter-racial couples any less "loose" as an act than gays?

It's not. It's just a word that sounds good for attacking the equality for gays - who wants a 'loose definition', after all? But since you approve inter-racial marriage, that's not loose.

By the way - factually, you are off - multiple states outlawed inter-racial marriage until 1967, when they did not voluntarily stop but the Supreme Court forced them to.

Marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman. Therefore, it is not and never was correct to alienate interracial couples and only allow same race couples to marry. Whether the laws prevented that is entirely irrelevant. A relationship between a black man and a white woman fall under the definition of marriage and therefore it is clear discrimination if you say that couple, "You can't marry because you are not of the same race."

Gay marriage is much different. A relationship between a gay man and another gay man does not fall under the definition of marriage. Therefore, it is not in any way discriminatory to say to that couple, "You can't marry, because you have no business doing so - marriage is between a man and a woman and does not apply to your relationship." It is no different than having different laws and guidelines for adults versus children or men versus women. How is it not the right of 5 year olds to live on their own and get married when older Americans are able to? Is that not clear discrimination? That sounds rediculous but it is the same idea as what gays are trying to do. Gays want to broaden the scope of marriage to include their relationships.

wow, where have you been the past 2+ years? tell us were you got this definition of marriage you are using!!

dont keep us in suspense!

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: OFFascist

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
This has nothing to do with a vote not going somebodys way. It has everything to do with peoples rights being taken away!

How can a "right" that has never existed be taken away?

Humans have un-alienable rights except in the eyes of bigots and haters like you.

Real Americans will run people like you out this country.

I don't see anything anywhere about state-sponsored gay marriage being an un-alienable right. Gay couples, like anyone in America, have a right to be together and do what they wish among themselves. The government, however, does not have to endorse that activity or broaden the definition of marriage to include it.

You seem to be confused. The amendment bans gay marriage. That's the government stepping in and RESTRICTING the definition of marriage, not expanding it. Why do you feel that it's okay for the government to do this?

The fact that there was no law regarding gay marriage meant that it was legal. Every action is a right until you create a law forbidding it. That's how our government has always worked, as stated in the Constitution of the United States. Anything not expressly forbidden is allowed. If you've ever read anything written by our founders, you'd realize that this is what they wanted. Fuck it, go read the US Constitution, it's plainly written there that any right not expressly forbidden by the states is a right kept by the people.

Marriage is not being redefined by allowing gay marriage. Get that through your thick skull. Gay marriage has always been legal until states started specifically defining it to mean between a man and a woman. The bigots of California decided that they wanted to redefine marriage so that it was only between a man and a woman.

IMPORTANT: MARRIAGE IS NOT UNIQUE TO CHRISTIANITY, nor were the Christians the first to come up with the idea. The Christian definition of marriage is not the legal definition and never has been.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman.

No, it isn't. As far as the state is concerned, it is a contract between two people wherein, upon execution of that contract, the parties enjoy certain additional rights and privledges that unmarried persons do not.

If Joe and Jane want to enter into the same contract with Linda, you cannot deny Jane he right to enter into that contract on the basis of her gender. That's gender discrimination.

Gay marriage is much different. A relationship between a gay man and another gay man does not fall under the definition of marriage. Therefore, it is not in any way discriminatory to say to that couple, "You can't marry, because you have no business doing so - marriage is between a man and a woman and does not apply to your relationship." It is no different than having different laws and guidelines for adults versus children or men versus women. How is it not the right of 5 year olds to live on their own and get married when older Americans are able to? Is that not clear discrimination? That sounds rediculous but it is the same idea as what gays are trying to do. Gays want to broaden the scope of marriage to include their relationships.

No, gays only want equal protection under the law, and they are entitled to it, no matter how ignorant you are of the real circumstance.

 

[Extelleron]

No, it isn't. As far as the state is concerned, it is a contract between two people wherein, upon execution of that contract, the parties enjoy certain additional rights and privledges that unmarried persons do not.

As far as I am concerned the government should not even be "marrying" anyone, it would eliminate a lot of the confusion and arguments. I do not see why gays are not happy with the idea of a "civil union" with the same rights and privelages of married couples. If it was up to me there would be none of this, the state would define everything as a civil union; the churches would marry heterosexual couples.

No, gays only want equal protection under the law, and they are entitled to it, no matter how ignorant you are of the real circumstance.

Nobody is denying that they are entitled to the exact same protection under the law as heterosexual couples; they are protesting that marriage should remain as it has always been and that gay couples should enjoy the same rights/privileges under a civil union.

IMPORTANT: MARRIAGE IS NOT UNIQUE TO CHRISTIANITY

I don't see where I said anything about this. I am not religious whatsoever and I believe in traditional marriage so I certainly agree with that statement.

Gay marriage has always been legal until states started specifically defining it to mean between a man and a woman

A clear definition of marriage won't be found in any law or constitution because the writers of those documents never thought that it would be necessary, that we would actually be arguing over whether marriage included gay couples.

I'm done with this subject; it isn't going to go anywhere no matter what I say or what you say, people have made up their minds on both sides. It is clear that the majority of America agrees with my side of the view; this forum is far-left and is not a good sampling of the typical American. As I said earlier, I am not religious, I don't want to enforce "my religion" on anybody else. I do want some elements of tradition and morals to be upheld, however, and morals/traditions are fading rapidly in this country. If it was up to me marriage would not be controlled by the government and we would not be having this conversation, but I can't see that ever getting changed.

 

[dlx22]

tradition for the sake of tradition is a horrible concept

what people think as moral behavior changes with time/education

I would hate to think our society has reached its peak level of morality

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: Extelleron

No, it isn't. As far as the state is concerned, it is a contract between two people wherein, upon execution of that contract, the parties enjoy certain additional rights and privledges that unmarried persons do not.

As far as I am concerned the government should not even be "marrying" anyone, it would eliminate a lot of the confusion and arguments. I do not see why gays are not happy with the idea of a "civil union" with the same rights and privelages of married couples. If it was up to me there would be none of this, the state would define everything as a civil union; the churches would marry heterosexual couples.

No, gays only want equal protection under the law, and they are entitled to it, no matter how ignorant you are of the real circumstance.

Nobody is denying that they are entitled to the exact same protection under the law as heterosexual couples; they are protesting that marriage should remain as it has always been and that gay couples should enjoy the same rights/privileges under a civil union.

IMPORTANT: MARRIAGE IS NOT UNIQUE TO CHRISTIANITY

I don't see where I said anything about this. I am not religious whatsoever and I believe in traditional marriage so I certainly agree with that statement.

Gay marriage has always been legal until states started specifically defining it to mean between a man and a woman

A clear definition of marriage won't be found in any law or constitution because the writers of those documents never thought that it would be necessary, that we would actually be arguing over whether marriage included gay couples.

I'm done with this subject; it isn't going to go anywhere no matter what I say or what you say, people have made up their minds on both sides. It is clear that the majority of America agrees with my side of the view; this forum is far-left and is not a good sampling of the typical American. As I said earlier, I am not religious, I don't want to enforce "my religion" on anybody else. I do want some elements of tradition and morals to be upheld, however, and morals/traditions are fading rapidly in this country. If it was up to me marriage would not be controlled by the government and we would not be having this conversation, but I can't see that ever getting changed.

reading this I feel like I'm walking through a museum of history.

The "Crusty-crabass" period of American History.

we NEED TRADITIONS DAMMIT!! Gays couldn't marry back in my day and they sure as heck shouldn't marry now!!

 

[Mr. Lennon]

Its not only the Mormon church that needs to be investigated. Christian churches have always told their congregation on what and who to vote for. They hand out pamphlets including this information, which then most bible thumpers will vote according to it. Must be real fun not being able to have a mind of your own.

Fuck religion and fuck bigots.

 

[brandonb]

Originally posted by: Zeppelin2282
Its not only the Mormon church that needs to be investigated. Christian churches have always told their congregation on what and who to vote for. They hand out pamphlets including this information, which then most bible thumpers will vote according to it. Must be real fun not being able to have a mind of your own.

Fuck religion and fuck bigots.

Sounds like you and them have something in common.

 

[Red Dawn]

How does allowing same sex marriages threaten the sanctity of marriage in general? Just because Rita and Julie got married I don't feel my marriage is threatened in the least.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Extelleron

No, it isn't. As far as the state is concerned, it is a contract between two people wherein, upon execution of that contract, the parties enjoy certain additional rights and privledges that unmarried persons do not.

As far as I am concerned the government should not even be "marrying" anyone, it would eliminate a lot of the confusion and arguments. I do not see why gays are not happy with the idea of a "civil union" with the same rights and privelages of married couples. If it was up to me there would be none of this, the state would define everything as a civil union; the churches would marry heterosexual couples.

Then people shouldn't be campaigning to deny gays marriage, but to deny EVERYBODY marriage, as recognized by the state.

No, gays only want equal protection under the law, and they are entitled to it, no matter how ignorant you are of the real circumstance.

Nobody is denying that they are entitled to the exact same protection under the law as heterosexual couples; they are protesting that marriage should remain as it has always been and that gay couples should enjoy the same rights/privileges under a civil union.

Now you're just arguing semantics for the sake of tradition. Why we should have to have two words for the same thing seems needlessly duplicitous, and only particularly motivated by a desire to segregate one class of citizen from another.

It is clear that the majority of America agrees with my side of the view;

No it isn't. The majority of America either wants gays to marry with equal rights, or not at all. Very few Americans appear to want to deny them access to a particular word while still granting every right to which access to that word ordinarily delivers.

this forum is far-left and is not a good sampling of the typical American. As I said earlier, I am not religious, I don't want to enforce "my religion" on anybody else. I do want some elements of tradition and morals to be upheld

That really isn't any different than enforcing your religion, seeing how religions ARE traditions and morals.

however, and morals/traditions are fading rapidly in this country.

They are changing, but we still have morals and traditions.

If it was up to me marriage would not be controlled by the government and we would not be having this conversation, but I can't see that ever getting changed.

So let's just deny gays marriage AND marriage rights, huh? Since we can't find a middle ground that would make YOU happy. Yeah, great idea.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: Extelleron
If it was up to me there would be none of this, the state would define everything as a civil union; the churches would marry heterosexual couples.

I'm not going to write up an argument for everything you've written because you've already announced your intentions to bow out of this thread. I'll simply say this: churches marry homosexual couples too. You know how I know? I've been to gay weddings in churches. It's a very narrow-minded view you have of religion to assume that all religion is inherently heterosexist and bigoted against homosexuality.

 

[BMW540I6speed]

Originally posted by: dlx22
tradition for the sake of tradition is a horrible concept

what people think as moral behavior changes with time/education

I would hate to think our society has reached its peak level of morality

Hope fully these "moral behavior changes" will occur with time and education. Humans who have power over other humans want to preserve it. It is an innate human characteristic, one of the original sins, if you will. In organized desert religion, this plays out as those in power (men) see threats to their ability to exercise power over; have a reflexive, emotional revulsion to that; and then go on to invent scriptural or intellectual defenses of that self-interested revulsion.

It explains how they can be aggressive opponents of abortion on the purported basis of their concern for all life while they fail to oppose - or even support - other societal activities that end life such as war or capital punishment. It explains how they can oppose homosexuality on the basis of strict interpretation of one scriptural prohibition while they completely ignore the prohibitions before and after.

Another thing, as far as I know, there are only three verses in the Bible condemning homosexuality as homosexuality - compared to thousands that speak of what we owe to the poor, our neighbors, etc.

What's more to the point is this little known point: There are also dozens of passages related to eunuchs - both eunuchs "born so of their mother's wombs" and eunuchs "made by men." Conservative Christians have a habit of defining "eunuch" as if it were identical to "celibate." This is a lie.

"Eunuch" was an overarching term in the ancient world that included castrated men, homosexual/transgender men, AND celibate men.

Now consider this: Most of the biblical references to eunuchs are either neutral or positive. Daniel's relationship with the eunuch in the Old Testement is in no way stigmatized. Philip's conversion of the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts is one of the most important events of that book.

So what this shows me is that all this "marriage is a sacrament between a man and a woman" stuff is a big load of bullshit - it's ahistorical, paranoid blather by people with an agenda that is definitely romantically anti-modern and probably anti-woman.

In fact, the "piously religious" among us continue to have an eerie and unsettling compulsion to zero in on anything sexual...Homosexuality, masturbation, pre-marital sexual relations, abortion, pornography, et al.

What a sad life they must lead looking down their collective noses at the rest of us. Their obsession with s-e-x. To these "Crotch Christians"; their motto is "If its between the navel and the knee, its bad for you and me." And, that uber-snide anti-anything-sexual group "Focus On The Family"? They should be renamed "Focus On The Fanny".

The fact is the men and women of the Bible were connected by a tremendous variety of arrangements that included polygamy, concubinage, and prostitution. Not only would marriage of one man and one woman have struck the ancients as bizarre, but the marital status of the people in those Old Testement and New Testement stories was never the point. The point was the way they treated each other.

 

[jonks]

So what type of person is the most ardently anti-gay marriage? Older christian minority republicans without college degrees who voted for McCain.

http://www.ppic.org/main/pressrelease.asp?p=896

 

[child of wonder]

Originally posted by: Eeezee

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: OFFascist

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
This has nothing to do with a vote not going somebodys way. It has everything to do with peoples rights being taken away!

How can a "right" that has never existed be taken away?

Humans have un-alienable rights except in the eyes of bigots and haters like you.

Real Americans will run people like you out this country.

I don't see anything anywhere about state-sponsored gay marriage being an un-alienable right. Gay couples, like anyone in America, have a right to be together and do what they wish among themselves. The government, however, does not have to endorse that activity or broaden the definition of marriage to include it.

You seem to be confused. The amendment bans gay marriage. That's the government stepping in and RESTRICTING the definition of marriage, not expanding it. Why do you feel that it's okay for the government to do this?

The fact that there was no law regarding gay marriage meant that it was legal. Every action is a right until you create a law forbidding it. That's how our government has always worked, as stated in the Constitution of the United States. Anything not expressly forbidden is allowed. If you've ever read anything written by our founders, you'd realize that this is what they wanted. Fuck it, go read the US Constitution, it's plainly written there that any right not expressly forbidden by the states is a right kept by the people.

Marriage is not being redefined by allowing gay marriage. Get that through your thick skull. Gay marriage has always been legal until states started specifically defining it to mean between a man and a woman. The bigots of California decided that they wanted to redefine marriage so that it was only between a man and a woman.

IMPORTANT: MARRIAGE IS NOT UNIQUE TO CHRISTIANITY, nor were the Christians the first to come up with the idea. The Christian definition of marriage is not the legal definition and never has been.

We should all honor the tradition of marriage.

A young lass is betrothed to a man at a young age in a business deal conducted by the two families. They are quickly married so they can begin a family. Shortly after the wedding, the local magistrate arrives to bless the union by taking the new wife into his bedchamber for a night.

 

[Arkaign]

All these people talking about 'tradition' need to get a grip. Tradition and religion alone will not hold a country together if we have no culture. We don't. We are the most vapid country in the Western world, our self-identity is almost entirely fabricated at different levels, our traditions are artificial, and ridiculously segmented throughout the social strata of our population.

Christianity, while holding valuable lessons and overall admirable values, is not a 'culture', not is it a prerequisite for a functional and stable country and economy. Some of the most Christian nations on earth are abominations in terms of almost any standard of living, while some of the most secular are incredibly nice places to live. Religion ! = Quality of Life.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: Extelleron
If it was up to me there would be none of this, the state would define everything as a civil union; the churches would marry heterosexual couples.

I'm not going to write up an argument for everything you've written because you've already announced your intentions to bow out of this thread. I'll simply say this: churches marry homosexual couples too. You know how I know? I've been to gay weddings in churches. It's a very narrow-minded view you have of religion to assume that all religion is inherently heterosexist and bigoted against homosexuality.

Churches marrying gays or people with different lifestyles is NOt the norm,
even though YES there are churches that will marry people with different lifestyles, those married do NOT have the same rigts afforded hetrosexual married couples!

The marriage is mostly syMbolic and has nothing to do with rights equated to the couple!

Peace!!

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: Extelleron
If it was up to me there would be none of this, the state would define everything as a civil union; the churches would marry heterosexual couples.

I'm not going to write up an argument for everything you've written because you've already announced your intentions to bow out of this thread. I'll simply say this: churches marry homosexual couples too. You know how I know? I've been to gay weddings in churches. It's a very narrow-minded view you have of religion to assume that all religion is inherently heterosexist and bigoted against homosexuality.

Churches marrying gays or people with different lifestyles is NOt the norm,
even though YES there are churches that will marry people with different lifestyles, those married do NOT have the same rigts afforded hetrosexual married couples!

The marriage is mostly syMbolic and has nothing to do with rights equated to the couple!

Peace!!

Yes, I know. I was merely pointing out that Extelleron made a blanket statement that explicitly stated that churches marry only heterosexual couples, and that's a flat out lie. Granted, most of what he's said has been so blatantly false that one has to wonder if he honestly believes it all, but that's just one more idiot on the internet.

You don't actually need to end every sentence with an exclamation point. It's far too exuberant for this early in the morning.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Zeppelin2282
Its not only the Mormon church that needs to be investigated. Christian churches have always told their congregation on what and who to vote for. They hand out pamphlets including this information, which then most bible thumpers will vote according to it. Must be real fun not being able to have a mind of your own.

Fuck religion and fuck bigots.

You are no less bigoted.

 

[BoomerD]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
How does allowing same sex marriages threaten the sanctity of marriage in general? Just because Rita and Julie got married I don't feel my marriage is threatened in the least.

Well, no...because Rita and Julie "doing it" is kinky...but Bruce and Steve is just plain sick...:roll:

Like Red, I fail to see how gay marriage is supposed to threaten mine...after all, it's not like us heterosexuals have "honored the sanctity of marriage" all that well over the years. With the straight divorce rate hanging at about 50%, with cheating on your spouse apparently being some kind of "points game" with some people, two gay people getting married just doesn't seem like it's gonna skew those numbers all that much...

"But OMFG! We might catch tey gay!"

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Extelleron

I don't see anything anywhere about state-sponsored gay marriage being an un-alienable right.

Didn't your mother warn you, if you didn't stop it, you'd go blind? :laugh:

Gay couples, like anyone in America, have a right to be together and do what they wish among themselves. The government, however, does not have to endorse that activity or broaden the definition of marriage to include it.

NOTHING in any California statute "sponsers" or "endorses" marriage between gays or anyone else. California and Federal statutes confer certain rights, duties and privileges between married couples, including tax advantages, visitation rights and the right to act as attorney ad litem for ill, injured and disabled partners. Under the U.S. and California state Constitutions, gay couples also have the right to equal protection under the law as other committed couples.

Prop. 8 is unconstitutional because it specifically denies the same rights, duties and privileges afforded to heterosexual married couples.

Questions for all of you who support Prop. 8 or otherwise oppose gay marriage:

1. Exactly what harm is done to you, your life or your marriage by allowing gay couples to enjoy the same rights and privileges afforded to you?
   
2. Exactly what pleasure or benefit to do you derive by being bigoted assholes to others who are costing you nothing and doing you no harm whatsoever?

Seriously -- Get over your bigoted selves. Gay couples want nothing from you, your church or your lives other than to be allowed to live their own lives with a partner of their choice without being hassled by you. They don't cost you anything, and they don't want to impose themselves on YOUR personal relationships. Beyond that, if you're in business, and you just do as little as pretend to be nice to them, you may even profit from their business.

 

[piasabird]

Family comes first. Are you for the children or not?

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: piasabird
Family comes first. Are you for the children or not?

You keep posting this, but you haven't addressed my response to you earlier. In case you missed it:

It's not the government's job to reinforce the teachings of the Bible any more than it's the government's job to reinforce the teachings of the Talmud or the Quran or the tales of the Norse Gods or any other religious text, so that argument is absolutely worthless from the outset. But let's examine the "family" that you are so interested in protecting. Are you honestly making the claim that gay or lesbian couples are incapable of having a family? I was raised by lesbian mothers... it's good to finally learn that I grew up without a family. Thanks for shedding new light on my upbringing. From now on, I will not refer to the women who raised me as "mothers," simply "those crazy dykes what done fed and clothed me all them years." Clearly this won't apply to children who were lucky enough to be adopted by straight parents; that's an actual family unit there. Or at least it is according to Thor.

So, would you say that I had no family? If so, would you say any adopted child had no family or just those adopted by gays and lesbians? If no, then it kind of destroys your entire argument, doesn't it?

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Zeppelin2282
Its not only the Mormon church that needs to be investigated. Christian churches have always told their congregation on what and who to vote for. They hand out pamphlets including this information, which then most bible thumpers will vote according to it. Must be real fun not being able to have a mind of your own.

Fuck religion and fuck bigots.

You are no less bigoted.

I thought you'd left the thread. I'm still curious about how you would address the situation I raised a while back (quoted verbatim from earlier):

Yes, I noticed his line about gay sex being worthless to society because it doesn't lead to procreation. My cousin was recently married and eager to start a family. To her horror, she learned that she was infertile. Now, according to the law, she is legally allowed to stay married, regardless of her inability to reproduce. According to Atreus21, she is effectively a worthless member of society. What's your proposal Atreus, should she be killed? She and her husband are looking into adoption to raise a family... is that OK with you even while gay adoption is apparently not a valid reason to allow gays to marry? Can you make the argument that infertile straight couples are any different from gay couples when it comes to sex that leads to procreation? Can you come up with a reason to allow the straight couple to marry and the gay couple to not?

I look forward to your reply Atreus21.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: piasabird

Family comes first. Are you for the children or not?

If it means producing more bible thumping BIGOTS, I would hope you don't reproduce. :thumbsdown:

You still haven't answered my questions, and I'll add another to address your irrelevant queston:

1. Exactly what harm is done to you, your life or your marriage by allowing gay couples to enjoy the same rights and privileges afforded to you?
   
2. Exactly what pleasure or benefit to do you derive by being bigoted assholes to others who are costing you nothing and doing you no harm whatsoever?
   
3. Exactly what does gay marriage have to do with anyone's children?

Until you address these questions, you're all bullshit and BIGOTRY. :|

 

[BMW540I6speed]

Originally posted by: piasabird
Family comes first. Are you for the children or not?

The desert god wants kids...

This is a big reason the ancient desert religions have with homosexuality, it has to do with reproduction. When these religions were forming the need was to have all hands on deck reproductively in order to out-number competing groups and just to stay afloat considering the high rates of infant and child mortality. Homosexuals were seen as opting out of this duty. Of course, this is no longer relevant and many gay people raise children but the attitude still prevails and ties in with other rules for family life (the Catholic ban on artificial birth control and divorce, for example).

For many evangelical churches, the existence of gay children is symptomatic of the brokenness of the families they come from so that becomes one more reason to be anxious. Also some of the Anita Bryant mythologies of gays recruiting others into their exciting and glamorous lifestyle of being the cause of societies woes is repeated there.

Although religion is often sold as a paternalistic, patriarchal societal vehicle, It could be said that the opposite is true. It suppresses the behaviors one associates with men, i.e. promiscuity and serves a constituency that does not favor promiscuity and values stable relationships. Religion suppresses sexuality. The suppression of sexuality is based on female, not male ethos. Religion is a mechanism for gaining conformity from those people who are the most powerful and dangerous in society, that is young men. The genius of religion is selling it as a patriarchal vehicle, when in fact it could be said that it is just the opposite. It is actually an abdication of responsibility...by placing responsibility on those people who administer the religion, but are not necessarily responsible for its tenets.

Gay people are an easy target for authoritarian churches to pick on as they try to stem the tide of change in family life and the position of women. Homophobia and sexism are still very prevalent and the churches have their own constitutional rights to proclaim what they see as "sin" and proper gender roles. Hopefully it's true that the younger generations entering these church's are much more tolerant.