People who believe being gay isn't a choice...

[rageaholic]

yet still see them as lesser beings. 

A lot of fundies believe that people choose to be gay.  It's obviously bullshit, but in the fundies mind, it justifies discrimination.

But what about people who aren't ignroant and do see that people are born gay?  How do they justify wanting to prevent them from marrying who they want to and wanting to keep them in the closet?  By their own logic, they can't help who they are, but still deserve to be treated like outcasts?  Unless they are hardcore Calvinists (aka complete monsters), how do they even attempt to justify this? 

[Dakota Bob]

To be fair, how many people actually hold that position? I imagine the argument would be something along the line of "it's icky so I don't like it"

[dpareja]

To be fair, how many people actually hold that position? I imagine the argument would be something along the line of "it's icky so I don't like it"

Or "teh holey babble sez its rong so i dont liek it" which is basically a "justification" for the same thing.

[TheReasonator]

Some people believe that gay people should just be celibate. There are even gay people who believe that gay people should be celibate.

[mellenORL]

It's along the lines of; they also know that black people cannot "help" being born black, but they still don't want them to move in next door.

And in a way, this is a more "honest" version of homophobic bigotry. The "hate the sin, not the sinner" faction are lying, and they know they are lying, to themselves and the world. But itz abowt lyin' fer jayzuz, so that's okay, see?

[Sylvana]

The main thinking is that to act on ones homosexual desires is to sin against god. Hence they can accept that someone can be born gay, but they see it as an "opportunity" to join the clergy of a church and become celibate in reverence of god or something.

For someone who is gay to in any way act on those desires is in their eyes to rebel against what god intended for them.

It is pretty strange, and the conditions of complete self denial are dangerous, but as usual for fundies its gods absolute law provided it does not affect them in any way, if it does then its open to interpretation.

[kefkaownsall]

Basically that it's not a choice but they can choose to not have sex.  I dunno these types seem to be missing a logic circut

[rageaholic]

The main thinking is that to act on ones homosexual desires is to sin against god. Hence they can accept that someone can be born gay, but they see it as an "opportunity" to join the clergy of a church and become celibate in reverence of god or something.

For someone who is gay to in any way act on those desires is in their eyes to rebel against what god intended for them.

It is pretty strange, and the conditions of complete self denial are dangerous, but as usual for fundies its gods absolute law provided it does not affect them in any way, if it does then its open to interpretation.

Ah the "only if you act on it" rule.  That's the go to arguement for Christians who want to be seen as "reasonable".  I've heard the same arguement when it comes to the sin of "lust".  Oh yeah, having the sexual desire isn't a sin, it's acting that well send you to hell.  Even though it's still unreasonable for God to expect us to supress our desires, (since they aren't hurting anyone) and as you said, extremely unhealthy.  It's another fundie mindfuck, they want to make it appear as if they're addressing the point, but what they're addressing is a strawman version of their own arguement! 

[TheUnknown]

The main thinking is that to act on ones homosexual desires is to sin against god. Hence they can accept that someone can be born gay, but they see it as an "opportunity" to join the clergy of a church and become celibate in reverence of god or something.

For someone who is gay to in any way act on those desires is in their eyes to rebel against what god intended for them.

It is pretty strange, and the conditions of complete self denial are dangerous, but as usual for fundies its gods absolute law provided it does not affect them in any way, if it does then its open to interpretation.

Ah the "only if you act on it" rule.  That's the go to arguement for Christians who want to be seen as "reasonable".  I've heard the same arguement when it comes to the sin of "lust".  Oh yeah, having the sexual desire isn't a sin, it's acting that well send you to hell.  Even though it's still unreasonable for God to expect us to supress our desires, (since they aren't hurting anyone) and as you said, extremely unhealthy.  It's another fundie mindfuck, they want to make it appear as if they're addressing the point, but what they're addressing is a strawman version of their own arguement! 

Isn't there a verse that says if you lust in your heart, it'll be the same as if you'd actually slept with them?  Doesn't that invalidate the "only if you act" argument, since even desiring it is considered acting?

[Random Gal]

I've also noticed in the fundie mentality that there are two kinds of homosexuality: Gay sexual desires and gay sexual acts. No love, no relationships, no commitment. Just sex.

Seriously, when I've argued about homosexuality with fundies, I've always put everything in the context of relationships. Yet I have to keep pulling them back to relationships because they keep trying their hardest to make the conversation about sexual acts instead.

[Material Defender]

Even if it wasn't a choice, does it make it right to oppress them? If it was a choice, that means everyone is bisexual. 100% of the population.

Plus, if we made being black a choice, would we be okay in rolling back civil rights? No. That would be insulting to even think that.

[rageaholic]

The main thinking is that to act on ones homosexual desires is to sin against god. Hence they can accept that someone can be born gay, but they see it as an "opportunity" to join the clergy of a church and become celibate in reverence of god or something.

For someone who is gay to in any way act on those desires is in their eyes to rebel against what god intended for them.

It is pretty strange, and the conditions of complete self denial are dangerous, but as usual for fundies its gods absolute law provided it does not affect them in any way, if it does then its open to interpretation.

Ah the "only if you act on it" rule.  That's the go to arguement for Christians who want to be seen as "reasonable".  I've heard the same arguement when it comes to the sin of "lust".  Oh yeah, having the sexual desire isn't a sin, it's acting that well send you to hell.  Even though it's still unreasonable for God to expect us to supress our desires, (since they aren't hurting anyone) and as you said, extremely unhealthy.  It's another fundie mindfuck, they want to make it appear as if they're addressing the point, but what they're addressing is a strawman version of their own arguement! 

Isn't there a verse that says if you lust in your heart, it'll be the same as if you'd actually slept with them?  Doesn't that invalidate the "only if you act" argument, since even desiring it is considered acting?

But that's where apologetics come in.  With apologetics, you can interperate things however the fuck you want while still claiming objectivism. 

Even if it wasn't a choice, does it make it right to oppress them? If it was a choice, that means everyone is bisexual. 100% of the population.

Plus, if we made being black a choice, would we be okay in rolling back civil rights? No. That would be insulting to even think that.

Of course not, but I do think it's even more fucked up to oppress people over things they can't help. 

[Material Defender]

Even if it wasn't a choice, does it make it right to oppress them? If it was a choice, that means everyone is bisexual. 100% of the population.

Plus, if we made being black a choice, would we be okay in rolling back civil rights? No. That would be insulting to even think that.

Of course not, but I do think it's even more fucked up to oppress people over things they can't help.

I suppose I don't care more or less either way because I'm bisexuality and I'd get rather peeved if someone dictated to me who I could love and who I couldn't.

[Askold]

Hence they can accept that someone can be born gay, but they see it as an "opportunity" to join the clergy of a church and become celibate in reverence of god or something.
 

But if we would insist that every single priest must be homosexual the fundies would still get their panties in a twist.

Just think how logical it would be:
-Many fundies are against abortion and contraception and everything that reduces the amount of babies being born. (but suprisingly have aren't so interested wether or not the babies survive their childhood or have an enjoyable life.) You know, that multiply and prosper, thing.

-In several branches of christianity priests must be celibate and therefore they can't ever have children. Which is bad because of aforementioned "multiply and prosper" thing.

-By demanding that all of these celibate priests (and nuns) are gay we would be killing two birds with one stone.

[Captain Jack Harkness]

Hence they can accept that someone can be born gay, but they see it as an "opportunity" to join the clergy of a church and become celibate in reverence of god or something.
 

But if we would insist that every single priest must be homosexual the fundies would still get their panties in a twist.

Just think how logical it would be:
-Many fundies are against abortion and contraception and everything that reduces the amount of babies being born. (but suprisingly have aren't so interested wether or not the babies survive their childhood or have an enjoyable life.) You know, that multiply and prosper, thing.

-In several branches of christianity priests must be celibate and therefore they can't ever have children. Which is bad because of aforementioned "multiply and prosper" thing.

-By demanding that all of these celibate priests (and nuns) are gay we would be killing two birds with one stone.

You forgot to mention that gay == pedophile in fundieland!  Whether they're celibate or not, we can't trust them with our kids!