God said it was bad. Well, he mostly only talked about men doing it, and it was in the specific context that all ejaculation that doesn't result in procreation is evil, but still, just like kids on the schoolyard, people always need someone different to pick on.

It's every bit as evil as eating shellfish, seeing a naked woman during her period, wearing clothes with mixed fibers, growing different crops in the same field, or cutting your sideburns. Duh.

Obviously, it'll destroy straight marriages. Or at least the 49% or so that don't end in divorce.

For most religious people the answer is that since god doesn't want people to be gay, doing it is violating HIS LAW so he'll be mad and do things like destroy the earth if there are gays.

LAAAWW !!!

Homosexuality is something that most people can't relate to, so it's a good candidate for demonization / harassment / bullying / demotion to second class citizens. The Bible's got close to nothing to do with it.

While that first part is true, I've no idea what the basis for the second statement is.

Tolerance toward homosexuals is very closely linked to religious identity and affiliation, and historically Abrahamic cultures have been more intolerant of homosexuals than others specifically due to Old Testament teachings. I personally know people who are fine with gay people as individuals, but feel compelled to oppose their rights and support bigotry because they believe it's required by God. Prejudice would still exist to some extent without religion, but the Bible's got a hell of a lot to do with it.

I say religion's got close to nothing to do with it because the Biblical support for gay-hating is so flimsy. While it's true Christianity (particularly fundamentalist Christianity) has seized upon gay-hating as the in thing, I don't see that as, "Sorry fellas, the Bible says we've got to hate gays, don't take it personally". Far more likely it's about exploiting homophobia that was already there because fundamentalism needs an evil to battle.

There's some interesting analysis here, which I will hasten to add doesn't agree with my take on the matter:

http://www.patheos.com/community/slacktivist/2011/07/09/from-t he-archives-the-gay-hatin-gospel/

One important point the article does make, though, is that this intensity of homophobia is a recent phenomenon.

I like slacktivist's essay, and I certainly taken the point that Christianity is defined today more by a selective historically influenced understanding of the Bible than it's actual content. In fact that was the point of my first post, noting that same sex relations is never specifically condemned, it's always in the context of prohibiting broad ranges of acts that Christians are mostly okay with.

That said, the essay discusses why gay-bashing is such a 'defining' attribute of Christianity, since why it is an attribute is obvious. The Bible tells followers that God wants them to kill gays, and nowhere says 'just kidding'. Like other horrifically amoral acts the Bible commands, it'll (mostly) fade out of existence once there's significant societal resistance. But in the meantime we've had thousands of years in which 8% or so of the population has been forced to live a lie, or be killed either by the state or church. Studies have repeatedly shown historical correlation between gay bigotry and Biblical influence both personally and on societies. If the negative influences of the Bible are excused because people are motivated by other factors when choosing which to apply, that'll wipe out the argument for any positive influence it has as well.

Yes, yes it will. People filter religion through their preconceived set of principles much more than religion shapes their principles. Otherwise, Christians would not be able to distinguish between "good, decent, sensible rules" ("thou shalt not steal", "hot hot man-on-man action is an abomination") and "archaic instructions that no longer hold" ("polycotton blends are an abomination", "no shellfish, not even Red Lobster").

If anything, it will help her.

You're right. The media would never pick up a story like this and run.

you mean, the LIEBRUL media?

come on, chump, anybody who would ever come close to voting for this screech owl thinks gay is a sticky sin and Ol' Marcus is as straight as an arrow

The make-up of Congress has everything to do with what "Obama" will pursue. I put Obama in quotes because, as you know, it's Congress that proposes laws and the President only signs them -- so Obama has little direct control over what crosses his desk. The President can attempt to lead, inspire, and persuade; but if there is an obstructionist Republican Congress you're not going to see a whole lot of liberal legislation no matter what.

Now, fill Congress with lots of Russ Feingolds, Barney Franks, and even Dennis Kuciniches for flavor, and suddenly "Obama" will pursue a liberal agenda so staggering you'll feel like you're in a Skittles commercial.

ha ha, remember when we thought that Republicans running an extreme hate monger candidate would galvanize moderates to vote? Fast forward 5 years and blind cynicism is the hot new trend for protest voting idiots.

The fucktarded belief that witholding votes for "good enough" candidates and allowing the batshit crazy Republicans to take power resulting in FIRING UP the left into revolution is no different than fundies who want to provoke the Middle East into ushering in the rapture.

I'm waiting for some of the foster kids to show up on A Current Affair.