Air conditioning vs Homosex

[Columbus]

My question can be phrased in different ways. More or less sinful, more or less evil, I don't want to debate the definition of terms like sin or evil. So I will just use the term "worse". By "worse" I just mean "more degrading to the human condition". As an American I don't claim to know enough about other cultures to have an informed opinion about them, so I am just talking about America, personally.
I am not discussing the extremes, either. I realize that there are people whose fragile health necessitates climate control. I am not talking about them. I am also not talking about pedophilia or promiscuity. I'm talking about competent adults having mutually agreeable sex.
The reason I'm asking this question is because I see air-conditioning as worse than homosex. Most Americans don't see this. The damage pervasive airconditioning has done to society seems obvious to me, but I don't see any damage done by gay people having sex. So I'm asking for opinions.
For most of human history there was no airconditioning. Most people today have never had it. It is not a need. But most Americans spend little time outside of a temperature range beyond a few degrees above or below 70F. They won't walk more than a few feet between their car and a building. So physical communities, like neighborhoods, become collections of buildings full of people who have no connection. The global petro-politics that supply the machines with power have become a dominant force far outstripping humanitarian concerns in priority. The power plants that supply the electricity damage the atmosphere in ways beyond our ability to gauge. I do understand the comfort level afforded by airconditioners. But I can also see the damage done by them, and I don't think America's obsession with them is healthy. Obviously, if everyone on the planet expected to be airconditioned to the extent that Americans do, the problems would be horrendous. It could not be done.
By comparison the problems created by gay people having sex seem utterly inconsequential. A few less babies being conceived isn't a problem with 6.5 billion people already here, most of whom are straight and altogether too likely to have more children. If the humans already here were being taken care of adequately it might be different. But they aren't. A few people unlikely to procreate seems like a good thing to me.

So why is homosex considered a bigger problem than airconditioning by American christians? I don't get it.

Tom

[Cathar1950]

Just about every one is a snappier dresser then me.
But, The Persnickety Platypus does make a good point. You would think with all the troubles in the world why single out some conceived sin of other peoples individual life that they would not go out of their way to limit the freedoms of expression and practice humble tolerance.
It seems the words of their Lord, that the problems of today are sufficient with out worrying about the slipper slope of liberty and tomorrow based on hearsay.

[Jose]

Isn't it just a whole lot easier to blame everything on a minority? I mean, look how much work you'd have to do to address even one thing on Persnickety's little list. But, if you can say "it's not global warming; it's god punishing us for harboring homosexuals," then you don't have to do anything at all! It's pretty scary, really.

But, look on the bright side. Pretty soon, we'll be out of energy, and won't be able to waste it on things like air conditioning. Phoenix will be in trouble, but then, they will be anyway because we won't be able to pump enough water to 'em to keep the city going. The place my son worked as a chef last summer used 2.8 million gallons of water a day, just on their golf courses.

Once air conditioning becomes infeasible, we'll get to go back to having "sleeping porches," and we'll get to sit outside in the evening, actually getting to know our neighbors. That would be weird.

[1John2_26]

"Haughtiness" makes people ignore the important things.

There are lot's of current issues more important that homosexual sex. Such as:
The upcomming Bird Flu
Global Warming
The waning middle class
Health care
AIDS in Africa
The oil peak
The impending extinction of the first ammendment
Genocides
Natural disasters
America's reversion to plutocracy
Starving children in Africa
More starving children in Africa
Starving children in other countries
Starving children in AMERICA
Starving ADULTS in all the aformentioned places
Unemployment
Civil rights
Exploitation of the poor man
Gun violence
The insufficient justice system
Nationalism
Consumerism
Unregulated corporations
Civil/economic inequality
Industrial agriculture
Industrial... just about everything else
Resource scarcity
Social disorganization
Environmental degration
The endangered national parks
The media
Nuclear weapons
Homicide
Crime
"Fair tax" initiative
Racism
Sexism
Pollution
Unequal distribution of resources
Militarism
Imperialism
Terrorism
Wal-Mart
The end of rights to privacy
Teen sex+abortions
Big business
The religious dogma that ignores all of this

All depend on morality to be defined as good and evil.

Good moral values ends all of these problems mentioned and ends gay pride parades were children have to see perversion as a civil rights issue.

It's all about moral values.

Good against bad.

[McCulloch]

All depend on morality to be defined as good and evil.
Good moral values ends all of these problems mentioned and ends gay pride parades were children have to see perversion as a civil rights issue.
It's all about moral values.
Good against bad.

Close but not quite true. It is all about who defines moral values. You and many other Christians assert that God defines moral values. The problem is that God does not communicate these moral values in an unambiguous verifiable way. In order to proclaim that Biblical moral values should be imposed on all, you would have to either assert that some form of intolerant theocracy is a good idea or show, beyond any doubt, that God exists and that He has communicated His will for us all in the Bible.

[The Persnickety Platypus]

All depend on morality to be defined as good and evil.

Exactly.

But if we are to logically define something as evil, we must be able to proove it to be harming some aspect of people or society at large. Homosexual intercourse in and of itself has not been shown to do this. Therefore, although it is probably not "good", it likewise cannot be considered "evil".

At any rate, we can all agree that far too much attention is being granted to this useless issue. Do the impoverished little African children have to start engaging in anal sex before you Christians start paying attention to them?

[1John2_26]

At any rate, we can all agree that far too much attention is being granted to this useless issue. Do the impoverished little African children have to start engaging in anal sex before you Christians start paying attention to them?

The ONLY people literally paying attention to the starving children of this planet IS Christianity and Christians.

Since millions are dying from AIDS gotten through heterosexual sex it would make good sense to keep them from embracing homosexuality and its expression of anal sex. Hasn't that killed enough homosexuals already?

[The Persnickety Platypus]

The ONLY people literally paying attention to the starving children of this planet IS Christianity and Christians.

I hadn't noticed.

Maybe it is the wide-scale Christian war against American welfare programs, not to mention the full fledged Christian support for Right-Wing plutocratic assaults (the "fair tax" initiative, tax breaks for the upper 1%) that is throwing me off.

But of course, if you were to hypothetically provide me with statistics depicting something like, say, the amount of money distributed to poor communities by Christian charities, or the number of Christian missionaries currently working in foriegn development programs, I might be able to take your claims more seriously.

Since millions are dying from AIDS gotten through heterosexual sex it would make good sense to keep them from embracing homosexuality and its expression of anal sex. Hasn't that killed enough homosexuals already?

Homosexual intercourse has no greater rate of HIV transmission than heterosexual.

Christian's response to the AIDS epidemic revolves around preaching abstinance (all while abolishing sex education), which has consistantly reaped DISASTEROUS results.

There are two easy steps to preventing the spread of AIDS, each of which Christians are well on their way to destroying (assuming they have not all ready).

Step one involves sex education- getting the word out about how STD's are spread. But of course, any decent Christian cannot stand for this liberal abomination, being that it "encourages sex".

Step two starts with a "C" and ends with an "O.N.D.O.M". However, according to the Roman Catholic missionaries whose job it is to brainwash Third World citizens, such controceptives "kill innocent human beings" (i.e. sperm cells), and will land you a ticket to hell. The rest of the world can only watch as the gullible African victims grow by the millions.


The only thing I have seen Christians contributing to starving communities are Bibles (which I hear typically prove to be inedible), along with the occasional raped kid.