On the beaten path

Christianity is not the only religion that perceives homosexuality as "contrary". Why have these prohibitions sprung up? From ancient times, what was the point of homosexuality? It didn't produce new humans, so it really was counterproductive. It was not understood, not encouraged, but tolerated. That was until man became more "civilized" and had more time on their hands. The Greeks, the Romans - all enjoyed their share of orgies where you didn't have to particular as to the gender of your partner(s). Fast forward to today: Homosexuals have the protection of many laws, afforded the same rights as everyone else, but that's not enough. The more militant amongst this subculture take great joy in flaunting their queerness, they have their own cruises, their own days at DisneyWorld, but that's still not enough. Truth be told, the vast majority of Christians don't care what you do behind closed doors with the sexual partner of your choice. We are taught to look at the log in our eye instead of the splinter in the eye of others. God will be the final judge - so it is not our place to judge (easier said than done), only to tolerate. However, toleration will always be severely tested by those who want the whole damn road instead of just the mile they were given.

Interesting points, at least from the perspective of your faith. It is also aknowledged and appreciated that your tone differs significantly from that of many who share your belief system.
The interesting point though, which should be contemplated by all, is that if is no divine inspiration dictating mores, then there is no real meaning to of it and, therefore, the one who is tolerated becomes a question.
And in my opinion, the answer rests with each individual, and therefore every opinion is just as valid as the next.

Here is a perfect example of the Christian conservative view on gays. You hear the word "tolerant" used a lot. Tolerant for others orientation would be great if that were actually the case.

"what was the point of homosexuality? It didn't produce new humans, so it really was counterproductive"

This is the assumption that homosexuality is a choice. Apparently since it does not produce offspring then these homosexuals need to change thier "habits" and "choices" and act more heteorsexual. It is not a choice or a preference. You can't "fix" a gay man. You can't send them to three weeks intensive counseling dispite what prominent Evangelical Leader Ted Haggard says.

"That was until man became more "civilized""

Is this a Geiko commercial gone bad? Are homosexuals savages? Are they any less civilized then anyone else? Homosexuality is not a problem solved by "modernizing" or "evolving" mankind. Homosexuality has been around for as long as animals have roamed the earth.

"Homosexuals have the protection of many laws, afforded the same rights as everyone"

They are protected by laws due to the oppression that they have suffered prior to the laws. If the laws were in place they would continued to be seen as third class citizens. They don't have the same rights as us. They are heavily scrutinized if they want to adopt a child. They can't serve in our military if they are open and comfortable with thier sexuality. Pro athletes must hide thier sexual orientation due to fear of ridicule and opression. And lastly, they can't even get a civil union let alone marriage.

The Evangelical Christian leaders continue to preach thier hate speech for gays. They do everything they can to stop gay equality and rights. This is not tolerance, in fact this is pure oppression. With prominent leaders such as Ted Haggard being caught with his pants down, its beyond oppression. This is pure hypocrisy. The fact that anyone's sexual orientation is even brought up obviously shows that homosexuals are not seen as equal.

The Canadian view is much more tolerant than the American. While I agree that gays should be entitled to freedom of expression, I draw the line at legal marriages. If they want to live together, then fine but marriage is a a sacred union between a women and a man.

Steve,
People have always tried to legislate morality through legislation of mentality. Mentality has been legislated through intimidation of those who would even dare to have another point of view. Throughout antiquity great thinkers have addressed this phenomenon: Plato/Socrates with their three tiered Republic consisting of artisans/craftsmen, guardians, and philosopher kings, with the philosopher kings being the upper echelon group that basically made all of the decisions for the masses. W.E. B. DuBois posited a reality of underrepresented people transitioning into an unwelcome society by following what he called "The Talented Tenth," which again positioned a specific group for leadership of the insinuated inferior. Nietzsche insisted that god was dead, which ultimately for him was a statement about god being nothing more than a concept created by the underclass of society to create a sensibility or leverage morality against the powerful that might undercut the prevailing "might makes right" mentality that was marginalizing the so-called weak.

In all these cases, though the initial cause may have differed, the effect was the same: a lack of confidence that people could either think for themselves, or that they would do the right thing. What is the right thing? People want to challenge the idea of a universal "right thing" or morality, but be it trite, it is never the less true, we all want just treatment. So, how do we get through to one another that the equation that groups in power continually attempt to put forward, that other's way is the wrong way, is not just inadequate, but wrong? Christians, Capitalists, Men, hegemonic cultures, heterosexuals, though all having reaped the benefits of residing in the position of power, have all been persecuted at some moment in history only to persecute once they survived theirs. It is all about consideration and context. In some context, we are all encouraged to comply to the prevaling morality or suffer the slings an arrows of ostracization. If on the road to our disenfranchisements, we would only consider the aftermath of our actions, perhaps we would change the context. Then Christians would truly be Christ like, Capitalist would really be practicing democratic behavior, men would be reflecting not manlike behavior, but human behavior, etc. Until this happens though, and it may never occur, we will continue to have competing factions leveraging morality to legislate mentality. I don't know about other countries, but it most definitely appears to be the American way!