Oversensitivity

[TheFathersDaughter]

I've noticed, especially recently, that people are FAR too sensitive to homosexuality. Sin or not, the overreaction is pathetic. And the assumption. A user just posted an article of a church who rejected pictures of two men kissing and hugging because they were "inappropriate". I don't know by what standard, since I'm sure brothers hug and kiss so you can't assume there's any romance.

In the streets I see people who can somehow ignore a heterosexual couple who are, with all due respect, practically having sex on the sidewalk, but throw a tantrum when a girl kisses another on the cheek, or even something as innocent as holding hands.

Regardless of whether or not it is a sin, are such outbursts appropriate? Or are small, more romantic affections between two people of the same gender more worthy of attention than showy and tasteless sexual behavior between two people of the opposite? (If you are against PDA in general, which do you think is worse? I have no problem with PDA as long as it's in good taste and for the purpose of showing love, not sexuality.)

 

[Brieuse]

I've noticed, especially recently, that people are FAR too sensitive to homosexuality. Sin or not, the overreaction is pathetic. And the assumption. A user just posted an article of a church who rejected pictures of two men kissing and hugging because they were "inappropriate". I don't know by what standard, since I'm sure brothers hug and kiss so you can't assume there's any romance.

In the streets I see people who can somehow ignore a heterosexual couple who are, with all due respect, practically having sex on the sidewalk, but throw a tantrum when a girl kisses another on the cheek, or even something as innocent as holding hands.

Regardless of whether or not it is a sin, are such outbursts appropriate? Or are small, more romantic affections between two people of the same gender more worthy of attention than showy and tasteless sexual behavior between two people of the opposite? (If you are against PDA in general, which do you think is worse? I have no problem with PDA as long as it's in good taste and for the purpose of showing love, not sexuality.)

It comes down to the fact that they are not comfortable with it, so they'll make up things to assure themselves that it is the other person's fault that they are not comfortable.

 

[HaloHope]

I've noticed, especially recently, that people are FAR too sensitive to homosexuality. Sin or not, the overreaction is pathetic. And the assumption. A user just posted an article of a church who rejected pictures of two men kissing and hugging because they were "inappropriate". I don't know by what standard, since I'm sure brothers hug and kiss so you can't assume there's any romance.

In the streets I see people who can somehow ignore a heterosexual couple who are, with all due respect, practically having sex on the sidewalk, but throw a tantrum when a girl kisses another on the cheek, or even something as innocent as holding hands.

Regardless of whether or not it is a sin, are such outbursts appropriate? Or are small, more romantic affections between two people of the same gender more worthy of attention than showy and tasteless sexual behavior between two people of the opposite? (If you are against PDA in general, which do you think is worse? I have no problem with PDA as long as it's in good taste and for the purpose of showing love, not sexuality.)

Such outbursts are totally inappropriate. As I have stated before hetrosexuality isn't something that I find particularly pleasent, while the vast majority of people like it seems to elude me (obviously I do realize I am an extreme minority in feeling this). I have an "ick factor" against hetrosexuality, however unlike some of those with an "ick factor" against homosexuality I don't make a public fuss about it.

It's a ridiculous double standard though that I should have to put up with a straight couple almost eating each others faces on a bench in public, yet (in certain areas at least) if I hold hands with my partner I get weird looks and endless cat calls (which while usually in good nature tend to irritate me). Hetrosexual and Homosexual public displays of affection (Im not talking about sex in public or overboard petting here) but holding hands, kissing and embracing should be equally acceptable in public. Two guys or two girls kissing each other is no different to a girl and a guy kissing in public.

 

[irateional]

In Europe, nudity is fairly normal. No one freaks out, because they aren't as weird about sex as we are.

A breast is just a body organ, just as innocuous as a leg or hand. Same goes for genitalia.

That unhealhty attitude towards sex is a result of the Puritan origins of the American Christian church. It's rooted in superstition and isn't logical.

 

[OllieFranz]

In Europe, nudity is fairly normal. No one freaks out, because they aren't as weird about sex as we are.

A breast is just a body organ, just as innocuous as a leg or hand. Same goes for genitalia.

That unhealhty attitude towards sex is a result of the Puritan origins of the American Christian church. It's rooted in superstition and isn't logical.

While the Puritans were the "fundamentalists" of their day, they have been given a bum rap by the comparison to todays fundamentalists. At least when it comes to sexual matters. Of all the early Americans, they were second only to the Quakers in avoiding a gender-based double-standard.

Their standards for extra-marital and pre-marital relations were the same as any other part of the country, except that they held everyone equally to that standard, unlike the South and Appalacia which "winked" if the sinner was a white man of standing in the community, or his son.

And they gave a young couple who were courting a lot more privacy than any other group. They are, for example, the ones who invented the practice of "bundling."

I believe that the idea that they were sexual prudes and busy-bodies began with Nathaniel Hawthorne's story "The Scarlet Letter." But the real damage came when the Boston "Brahmins" accepted and intensified the prudish attitudes that were developed by the lower gentry and upper-middle class of Victorian England.

The real religious prudery comes from the Bible Belt, and dates only from the post-WWII '40s. And has always been more political than Christian. Starting with the '50s purge of "dangerous subversives" from society: Commies, pinkos, and homosexuals.

 

[Zaac]

I've noticed, especially recently, that people are FAR too sensitive to homosexuality. Sin or not, the overreaction is pathetic. And the assumption. A user just posted an article of a church who rejected pictures of two men kissing and hugging because they were "inappropriate". I don't know by what standard, since I'm sure brothers hug and kiss so you can't assume there's any romance.

By the standard that is God's Word. If it is made known that the two guys are homosexual lovers, then it is completely appropriate to reject that. The Bible says 3But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God's holy people. Ephesians 5:3

Should God's people disobey Him just because some think it's inappropriate because they believe an activity to not be sinful? Ultimately, is this not from whence your angst stems?

In the streets I see people who can somehow ignore a heterosexual couple who are, with all due respect, practically having sex on the sidewalk, but throw a tantrum when a girl kisses another on the cheek, or even something as innocent as holding hands.

It's inappropriate on the streets too. Just because there is sin in the street doesn't mean that the Church has to condone it inside of God's House.

Regardless of whether or not it is a sin, are such outbursts appropriate?

What do you want God's people to do? Sit back and not say anything the way they have for years and lose God's ground to the purveyors of disobedience?

Or are small, more romantic affections between two people of the same gender more worthy of attention than showy and tasteless sexual behavior between two people of the opposite?

Nope.

 

[Ave Maria]

No, such outbursts are not appropriate.

 

[Zaac]

Could one not also ask if it is appropriate for gay people to picket and scream hate speech, bigot, etc whenever someone tells them that their same sex sexual acts are wrong?

 

[TheFathersDaughter]

Could one not also ask if it is appropriate for gay people to picket and scream hate speech, bigot, etc whenever someone tells them that their same sex sexual acts are wrong?

I could use the same stereotypes about Christians by trying to point everyone who disagrees with homosexuality with Westboro Church Zaac. To your previous post, an outburst is initially this: "OH MY GOODNESS THAT'S DISGUSTING". It is inappropriate, period. Christians can't interfere with a random strangers life unless they can do it in a loving way. And no publicly either.

 

[Zaac]

I could use the same stereotypes about Christians by trying to point everyone who disagrees with homosexuality with Westboro Church Zaac. To your previous post, an outburst is initially this: "OH MY GOODNESS THAT'S DISGUSTING". It is inappropriate, period. Christians can't interfere with a random strangers life unless they can do it in a loving way. And no publicly either.

You mean the way that those in support of fornicative homosexual acts give their outbursts of "RIGHT-WINGED BIGOT SPEWING HATE SPEECH?"

 

[TheFathersDaughter]

You mean the way that those in support of fornicative homosexual acts give their outbursts of "RIGHT-WINGED BIGOT SPEWING HATE SPEECH?"

Or the way all conservative Christians respond to anyone who disagrees with them with "SATAN WORSHIPPING HIPPIE LIAR". That was sarcasm by the way. Your generalizations are not appreciated.

 

[Zaac]

Or the way all conservative Christians respond to anyone who disagrees with them with "SATAN WORSHIPPING HIPPIE LIAR". That was sarcasm by the way. Your generalizations are not appreciated.

Stop bearing false witness cause you know that all Christians don't respond like that.

My point in responding to your post is that you're asking a question about Christians that equally applies to i.e supporters of homosexual fornication.

If the Christian's behavior is deemed inappropriate, then so is the behavior of the i.e supporter of homosexual fornication.

 

[irateional]

Stop bearing false witness cause you know that all Christians don't respond like that.

My point in responding to your post is that you're asking a question about Christians that equally applies to i.e supporters of homosexual fornication.

If the Christian's behavior is deemed inappropriate, then so is the behavior of the i.e supporter of homosexual fornication.

Whoa.

Turnabout is fair play dude.

Once again, go read Romans 14, then come back and tell me what you think Paul meant when he said "what is good for one, is not good for another".

 

[TheFathersDaughter]

Stop bearing false witness cause you know that all Christians don't respond like that.

My point in responding to your post is that you're asking a question about Christians that equally applies to i.e supporters of homosexual fornication.

If the Christian's behavior is deemed inappropriate, then so is the behavior of the i.e supporter of homosexual fornication.

Of course.

But you're also just trying to force your way around the actually topic since you responded saying that showing any homosexual affection is inappropriate, I questioned it, and you turned around with something off-topic.

 

[UberLutheran]

What do you want God's people to do? Sit back and not say anything the way they have for years and lose God's ground to the purveyors of disobedience?

I've told you repeatedly what GOD'S WORD definitively states is to be done to homosexuals, and the manner in which it is to be done -- and each time you've found reasons not to do it (people are "dividing the Gospel" "that's not what the New Testament is about" ad finitum).

You're a fundamentalist, Zaac: either you believe the entire counsel of God's Word, including the parts you find distasteful, or you don't believe a word of it. That's what you've been telling me for weeks, now. You can't have it both ways.

We're obviously saved by faith -- and by observing every last word, dotted "i" and crossed "t" of The Law. If we love God, then we follow The Law -- to the letter.

Isn't that what you've been telling us, Zaac?

Oh -- and be sure to report this post for my having the unmitigated gall to point out something to you which you don't happen to like, Zaac.

 

[irateional]

I've told you repeatedly what GOD'S WORD definitively states is to be done to homosexuals, and the manner in which it is to be done -- and each time you've found reasons not to do it (people are "dividing the Gospel" "that's not what the New Testament is about" ad finitum).

You're a fundamentalist, Zaac: either you believe the entire counsel of God's Word, including the parts you find distasteful, or you don't believe a word of it. That's what you've been telling me for weeks, now. You can't have it both ways.

We're obviously saved by faith -- and by observing every last word, dotted "i" and crossed "t" of The Law. If we love God, then we follow The Law -- to the letter.

Isn't that what you've been telling us, Zaac?

Oh -- and be sure to report this post for my having the unmitigated gall to point out something to you which you don't happen to like, Zaac.

He won't answer. Just letting ya know.