I suggest you recall how a dog who has been kicked far too often reacts with every foot movement.

The over-reaction is NOT without justification.

Go to an average Sunday sermon that has on the sign outside “Gays, an abomination in God’s eyes”...

And this doesn’t even begin to address the anti-homosexual efforts of many conservative, self-labeled “Christian” groups engage upon.  I use the quotes because the Christianity I was taught does not include this type of hate.

So, do you blame the dog for cringing at every foot movement because he has been kicked?

(No, I am not calling homosexuals “dogs” but it seemed the simplest simile at the time).

The over-reaction is WAS without justification.

The word fruit in the bible has nothing to do with a group of poeple.  It has everything to do with the works that we do in our life.  (As in the fruits of our labor) Anyone who has even done light reading of the bible would understand this.

“Go to an average Sunday sermon that has on the sign outside “Gays, an abomination in God’s eyes”... “

Do you really hear this in the average Sundy sermon?  How many of these sermons have you been to.  Most of the time people will hear what they want to hear.  All of these types of sermons that I have heard go that “The Homosexual lifestyle is an abomination in God’s eyes...”
This is talking about the act, not the people.  The same thing is said about adultery, relations before marriage and so on.  We are taught to love the person, but hate the sin.

There is another phrase that can be used for this argument…
The boy who cried wolf too many times.

I gotta agree with JHawkNH on the ‘average Sunday morning service’.  Average is not Fred Phelps or anything close to that.

As a Christian, I believe that there are things that are sin - inherntly wrong things.  Why are they wrong?  They come between our relationship with God and they also damage ourselves.  Granted, there have been some within the church to place a special emphasis (and wrongly so) on homosexuality.  Why?  I don’t know - maybe because it is something that is naturally distasteful for those who aren’t part of it.

To me there is little difference between homosexuality and adultery.  I believe that both are sin and are self-damaging.  Adultery is probably worse simply because it has a larger participating demographic.  HOWEVER - the point of calling out sin is to rid ourselves of it, not to make us superior or judgemental.

And although I may take exception to the antics and extremeism of the ‘Gay Movement’, I get along quite well with my lesbian neighbors, just as I do with my adulterous neighbors.  They also have been gracious enough to get along with their sinful Christian neighbor.

I truly wish the church had it right, but we don’t - at least not across the board.  However, that doesn’t justify the pc stupidity that I find quite annoying.  (Your dog analogy is a good example.  I don’t think it holds water, but I do think it is in jeopardy of also being subject to the kneejerk thing from the Gay community:  ‘That Jack guy just called us all dogs’ without reading or considering the content of what was said.)

Not everyone will agree with me (probably a good thing) and I’m just fine with that.  What I am not fine with is people deciding they don’t agree with me and then reading things that are obviously not there into everything I say.

What good is a long comment without a link:  Barbara Curtis is a good friend and she has some very solid insights about our failings on her blog.  I found this post a particularly good treatment of the issue - both the challenges that sin issues cause for Christians as well as how vital true compassion really is.

I was wondering, “who” were the ones that reacted to Sam Brownback’s comments in Rolling Stone? Was it one of the respected Gay Rights groups like the Human Rights Campaign, or was it a fringe group jockeying for attention?

I’m with Jack on this one—the “over reaction” to Mr. Brownback’s comments stems from previous experience.  If someone (or a group) has been continually victimized, it’s easy to see the intent to victimize everywhere.  It’s what past experience has taught.

At the same time, it’s a shame that we seem to be unable in this country to have any kind of serious discussion between different points of view.  For example, this past Christmas we had the entire “War on Christmas” fiasco in which some Conservative Christians declared that the use of “Happy Holidays” by stores was some kind of “persecution” against them. 

The role of faith in society is an important subject, it’s a shame we have to use silly proxies like the “War on Christmas” instead of actually having the discussion.

I suppose I’ve gotten a bit off subject, but I believe “over reactions” to percieved hate speech and reactions to the “over reactions” are replacing serious discussion in this country.

I think to effectively ban hate speech, we have to ban all speech.  And no, I’m not joking.  You know what hate speech is, and I do too but it is not possible to define, because any definition is too exclusive and also too inclusive at the same time.  (Kind of like the I know it when I see it regarding pornography.)

If a store wants to say ‘Happy Holidays’ to be inclusive, that is fine by me.  If the local fire department where I grew up has a nativity, and adds a menorah to be inclusive, great!  The problem is where action is taken not to include but rather to defend against offense.  Like changing to ‘Happy Hollidays’ simply to cater to a small minority that are offended by the name of the holliday we celebrate on December 25.  (And I give them the benefit of the doubt on that issue - I simply assume that all retailers are in the first category.  Judging intent is impossible except in the most egregious of offenses.)

We all get offended on a daily basis.  It just seems that so much of politics (on all sides) is simply outrage over offense, occasionally over something significant.  Unfortunately, the threshold is set so low, that every communicated sentence sets off somebody’s alarm.

And that is what I think is going on with the scenario described in the original post.  Political opponents grabbed a word out of context and flew off the handle.  You can blame it on history or vicimization or whatever excuse you like.  I don’t buy it.  It is an overreaction to an innocent word in order to make political hay.