What exactly is the christian fear of gay marriage?

[connermt]

This thread is meant for clarification purposes:
As a christian, what do you fear the legalization of gay marriage will do to the country, your faith and yourself personally?
Please provide examples of past issues where something was made legal and created a negative issue with your country, faith and/or yourself.

Of course there are extremes on each side, but the majority of people who are pro-legal gay marriage don't seem to much care what a church says, so long as their legal rights are adhered to just like eveyone else's.

I've looked at many responses to both sides and can honestly not see, other than hate or "being gay is gross", any legitimate reasons that would want one to say "gay people who care about each other and live in a relationship shouldn't have the say legal rights as straight people.

Any elightenment on the subject would be appreciated.

[Clownboat]

Here I gotta skip a bit of it 'cause the picture in question is the one I wanna get at...

I note the header on the pdf I'm fixing to link to says this deal's open to revision, but here we go...

State of Utah v. Warren Steed Jeffs

Note the www is utcourts dot gov. Unless the ruskies or them chinesians have penetrated deep into the bowels of our government, and I'm sorry I said that, surely that's a reliable url.

You mean...the court case that overturned Jeff's previous conviction (that had him, BTW, OUT OF THE COMPOUND at the time of the raid) resulting in him getting sent to Texas?

Hey, nobody is defending Jeffs here. The problem is, the folks in the compound weren't Jeffs.

Here's what the ACLU had to say about this raid:

The ACLU maintains that the raid was prompted by a single, unsubstantiated allegation of abuse, and they allege that all children at the ranch were believed at risk solely because of exposure to FLDS beliefs regarding underage marriage. But, the ACLU contends, "exposure to a religion's beliefs, however unorthodox, is not itself abuse and may not constitutionally be labeled abuse." The ACLU pointed out that parents were separated from their children without individual hearings and without particularized evidence of abuse, and that DNA testing was ordered without evidence that parentage was in dispute. Such actions, the ACLU asserts, "should not be indiscriminately targeted against a group as a whole – particularly when the group is perceived as being different or unusual."


Indeed, the courts agreed with the ACLU. Are you honestly going to argue that the people Texas called the VICTIMS of Jeffs deserved what Texas did to them?

Believe me, Texas screwed up here, big time....and the Texas CPS has been scrambling to cover it's collective butts since the raid.

Warren Jeffs had been convicted and was in prison at the time of this raid, m'friend. In other words, he wasn't THERE....and neither he nor his nearest cohorts were present at the FLDS ranch, and hadn't been for quite awhile. That picture was of the Baptist buses carting the women and children taken in the FLDS raid, being escorted by a very heavy police guard in a caravan.

I was looking for that specific picture, as it was one I used in a thesis I wrote about the FLDS raid four years ago, and for some dumb reason, couldn't find anywhere else last night. So forgive me for the website; I was going specifically for the photo.

Surely rational people know that not all members of a group are gonna be proud about their leadership. Not all members of a group should be looked on in shame 'cause some others of 'em did what some of us do.

Indeed...but Texas went in and destroyed 'em anyway.

But c'mon.

Indeed, 'c'mon.' the FACT is that, when everything fell out, the incident of child abuse within that combound was less than 10% of that found in the foster care that the state put the kids in. The amount of sexual abuse was less than 5% of the state statistics.....but hey, that doesn't matter. Warren Jeffs was in jail--now let's get the people Jeffs victimized and REALLY show 'em that they have to do things our way.

Are we to chalk this incident up to "danged if the man didn't get him another'n and y'all leave ol' Jeffs there alone", or are we to ponder about the damage we'd do if someone did this our daughter?

(waving hand, yet again) Jeffs WAS IN JAIL AT THE TIME OF THE RAID. In fact, none of the men who were later charged with, or convicted of, offenses were there at the time of the raid.

Now what?

In my heart I know Miss dianaiad to be a good person, 'cause she displays her grace and girl there everywhere she goes, and I know in my heart she won't condone what we just read through. But at some point, we, as rational and reasonable, peace loving as we can be and that's what we're trying to do hippy human beings, must not accept the coercive, forced marriage of any of our youngn's.

As opposed to the 90% more likely that those same girls will be pregnant out of wedlock in the foster care system the state put 'em in? 100 times more likely to be raped?

No, I don't agree with Jeffs. I think that the FLDS are W.R.O.N.G.

But that's not the point, is it? The point is, nobody in the FLDS compound at the time of the raid was raping anybody, hurting anybody, or having sex with underaged women. In fact, as it turns out, the 'underaged mothers' turned out to be, like...27 or so, and at least one 'under aged mother' had never been pregnant. The TExas CPS was padding the stats to cover their behinds---and as it turned out, the court caught 'em doing it. The COURTS told the CPS to send the kids home....and the CPS refused.

The CPS said that the children weren't being educated (they were--homeschooled and well ahead of their grades, most of 'em) .............and then refused to let them go to school or continue homeschooling. The CPS claimed that they were in danger of physical abuse--and were responsible for more broken bones and physical injuries to those children in one month than the entire compound had seen in two years. The CPS claimed that the FLDS mothers were not taking care of their children properly--and ended up putting several of those children in the hospital because of the gentle care they received from the state.

Joey, this SHOULD make you angry. It really should. I don't LIKE what Jeffs did. I don't LIKE what the other men did...but it turns out that they weren't the whole of the culture---and the rest of the folks were the ones the state punished because the STATE decided that they couldn't exercise their faith as they wished.

.........................and you wonder why "Christians fear gay marriage?" It's not gays getting married that's the problem. I don't give a flying fig whether they get married or not. More power to 'em.

I simply want to avoid the raids. And there WILL be those raids...metaphorically, if not physically with the guns, dogs and snipers.

So, I contend that a culture, a religion, an atheistic deal there, and if some of them agnostics don't hush, or a "belief system", a "worldview", or any of all of that gets upset 'cause one of 'em abused a position of authority in order to abuse someone, that deal there is to be looked at with jaw to the floor, eyes bugged out, and scratching at the top of one's head.

And when asked why you're so incredulous, you get more of it!

OK.

but if an atheist boy scout leader abuses one of his charges, do you think it is the appropriate response to use a crank call from "Bobby" (who is actually George who lives in an entirely different state and has a history of making such calls) as an excuse to pull a full on SWAT raid against all your atheist neighbors, remove your children, make your wives move half way across the state (without any financial support) in order to be within visiting distance of those kids, while your men are under investigation for sexual crimes.....when the guy who actually DID it is already in jail and has been for years?

I can just hear the outcry now. The world would think that the Yellowstone supervolcano had erupted during the superbowl; it would stink up the world.

And you know it.

Nope, Joey, this was wrong. But it happened, is still happening....and WILL happen if the government decides to declare that gay marriage is legal and everybody MUST accept it AS marriage, no matter what.

There won't be (because there isn't now) any exceptions for religious beliefs. There will be lawsuits. There will be tax penalties. There will be forced compliance.....

And that sort of thing is one of the reasons this nation was established in the first place; to keep governments OUT of religious freedoms.

Am I reading about the wrong court case?

- Defendant Warren Jeffs was convicted of two counts of
rape as an accomplice for his role in the compelled marriage of
fourteen-year-old Elissa Wall to her nineteen-year-old first
cousin.
- Jeffs’ teachings also focused extensively on the
importance of obedience. Wall witnessed the consequences of failing to follow these teachings firsthand in 1999 when her father was deemed
disobedient to FLDS leaders and had his family “stripped from
him.� Wall, her mother, and her siblings were removed from her father’s home in Salt Lake City and sent to live with Fred Jessop, Rulon’s then second counselor, in Hildale, Utah. Jeffs subsequently performed a ceremony marrying Wall’s mother to Jessop as one of his plural wives.
- Two of Wall’s older sisters, both of whom were married
to Rulon, tried to intervene on Wall’s behalf. Jeffs was present
during their conversation with Rulon. Rulon expressed concern
over the arrangements, but Jeffs said that Jessop was “insisting
that this happen because of who he is� and “[w]e would like to
honor his request.
- So much more...
http://www.utcourts.gov/media/highprofi ... _27_10.pdf

Or do I have false information?

[His Name Is John]

You want your religion to dominate by force, but you're offended by another religion ruling by force? That is woefully inconsistent and biased.

Who said anything about dominating by force?

Presumably you want the state to be atheistic, a truly secular (non-religious) state. You want your state to reflect your world view, while respecting others. I simply want the same.

Why? Besides being against your traditionalist Catholic moral views, how do gay people affect your life? What does granting them equal rights do to you or your church?

The fact is that it is against my Christian moral views.

How do gay people affect my life? They don't. But they effect their own. I don't want to openly promote a lifestyle I see as harmful in both this life and the next. In any case, I don't only disagree with acts which are 'harmful to me'. I am also against self harming.

What does 'equal rights' do to my Church? Nothing.

From the state's perspective, there is no difference. All Americans are entitled to equal protection under the law. The state's job is not to enforce religious mores, it is to protect the rights of all.

Yes but I would argue that it is clear there should be a difference. Just biologically it is clear there is. Morally there is (so all the major world religions argue). They just aren't the same. Society should stop pretending they are.

If the majority supported a second Holocaust, would you support that? If the majority supported an atheist totalitarian dictatorship, would you support that?

I wouldn't support it, because I don't get my morality from the majority. But I would believe I guess that they have the right (in a way to do so). That is the rules of democracy. Now I would also believe that if another country wanted to invade that country to put a stop to it, they would also be within their rights.

But I am a bit vague on this issue. I will have to think it over a bit more.

[Uijboo]

Who said anything about dominating by force?

I don't want to openly promote a lifestyle I see as harmful in both this life and the next.

Then when you are given a vote, you would abstain? Because in that vote you would be doing harm either way, although arguably less with one. Voting it down wouldn't do anything about the reality of homosexual men and women cohabitating and living in sin, just the state recognizing it.

That vote would also be contributing to the power of a possible majority vote, which is nothing short of a dominating force.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 52:

Who said anything about dominating by force?

I think force is implied when we pass laws that are, well, enforced. That said, I'm in general agreement with your following point about it...

Presumably you want the state to be atheistic, a truly secular (non-religious) state. You want your state to reflect your world view, while respecting others. I simply want the same.

While I respect this on its face, I contend that where we allow religion to be the law of the land, we start on a slippery slope t'wards oppression.

The fact is that it is against my Christian moral views.

How do gay people affect my life? They don't. But they effect their own. I don't want to openly promote a lifestyle I see as harmful in both this life and the next. In any case, I don't only disagree with acts which are 'harmful to me'. I am also against self harming.

What does 'equal rights' do to my Church? Nothing.

I think this is the most difficult deal in regards to homosexuals and rights. Where good folks think they're doing good, dangitall if some of 'em ain't.

Yes but I would argue that it is clear there should be a difference. Just biologically it is clear there is. Morally there is (so all the major world religions argue). They just aren't the same. Society should stop pretending they are.

I contend that regardless of a god's wants or wishes, we as a society should seek to ensure that we treat folks as equals.

If the majority supported a second Holocaust, would you support that? If the majority supported an atheist totalitarian dictatorship, would you support that?

I wouldn't support it, because I don't get my morality from the majority. But I would believe I guess that they have the right (in a way to do so). That is the rules of democracy. Now I would also believe that if another country wanted to invade that country to put a stop to it, they would also be within their rights.

General agreement.

But I am a bit vague on this issue. I will have to think it over a bit more.

That's one reason I prefer not to debate by hypotheticals (with respect to the intent of the good, right and honorable hypothetical in question).

[dianaiad]

Am I reading about the wrong court case?

I dunno. What point is it that you are attempting to prove?

- Defendant Warren Jeffs was convicted of two counts of
rape as an accomplice for his role in the compelled marriage of
fourteen-year-old Elissa Wall to her nineteen-year-old first
cousin.
- Jeffs’ teachings also focused extensively on the
importance of obedience. Wall witnessed the consequences of failing to follow these teachings firsthand in 1999 when her father was deemed
disobedient to FLDS leaders and had his family “stripped from
him.� Wall, her mother, and her siblings were removed from her father’s home in Salt Lake City and sent to live with Fred Jessop, Rulon’s then second counselor, in Hildale, Utah. Jeffs subsequently performed a ceremony marrying Wall’s mother to Jessop as one of his plural wives.
- Two of Wall’s older sisters, both of whom were married
to Rulon, tried to intervene on Wall’s behalf. Jeffs was present
during their conversation with Rulon. Rulon expressed concern
over the arrangements, but Jeffs said that Jessop was “insisting
that this happen because of who he is� and “[w]e would like to
honor his request.
- So much more...
http://www.utcourts.gov/media/highprofi ... _27_10.pdf

Or do I have false information?

I honestly don't get the point. We all agree that Jeffs was/is a nasty piece of work. That's why he was in JAIL at the time of the FLDS raid on the compound, in which ONLY women and children were removed, kids separated from their mothers, not allowed to go to school, be with their mothers---some of those mothers and children having been in monogamous marriages according to the law.

We are talking about a judge who did not accept birth certificates as evidence of age (so that she could claim that 27 year old women were actually 15) and refused to let nursing mothers care for their babies until DNA tests were done to prove that they were, indeed, mother and child. We are talking about pre-pubescent children who were subjected to whole body X-ray and MRI scans, who were given gynecological exams to check for virginity and STD's.

What they FOUND was that these kids, because of some inbreeding (closed culture and all that) were prone to a very specific genetic disposition to brittle bones, that the incident of child abuse within the camp was far lower than that of the Texas population at large, and that there was no, zero, ZIP evidence for sexual child abuse.

Jeffs. Rulon and the other people mentioned in your court case?

Were not at the camp at the time of the raid.

Because they were ALREADY IN JAIL.

What is so difficult to comprehend here? The SWAT teams went in and got women and children....and left the men behind.

I mean....hello? Earth to the planet "Let's imprison the victims and let the abusers go free?"

One last thing....knowing what we do about the affect of persecution upon belief systems...what are the chances that Texas 'saved' ANY of those women and children from polygamy and under-aged marriage?

What DO you think their reaction was/is to this raid? Think you've converted any of 'em?

[cnorman18]

[Flail]

Am I reading about the wrong court case?

I dunno. What point is it that you are attempting to prove?

- Defendant Warren Jeffs was convicted of two counts of
rape as an accomplice for his role in the compelled marriage of
fourteen-year-old Elissa Wall to her nineteen-year-old first
cousin.
- Jeffs’ teachings also focused extensively on the
importance of obedience. Wall witnessed the consequences of failing to follow these teachings firsthand in 1999 when her father was deemed
disobedient to FLDS leaders and had his family “stripped from
him.� Wall, her mother, and her siblings were removed from her father’s home in Salt Lake City and sent to live with Fred Jessop, Rulon’s then second counselor, in Hildale, Utah. Jeffs subsequently performed a ceremony marrying Wall’s mother to Jessop as one of his plural wives.
- Two of Wall’s older sisters, both of whom were married
to Rulon, tried to intervene on Wall’s behalf. Jeffs was present
during their conversation with Rulon. Rulon expressed concern
over the arrangements, but Jeffs said that Jessop was “insisting
that this happen because of who he is� and “[w]e would like to
honor his request.
- So much more...
http://www.utcourts.gov/media/highprofi ... _27_10.pdf

Or do I have false information?

I honestly don't get the point. We all agree that Jeffs was/is a nasty piece of work. That's why he was in JAIL at the time of the FLDS raid on the compound, in which ONLY women and children were removed, kids separated from their mothers, not allowed to go to school, be with their mothers---some of those mothers and children having been in monogamous marriages according to the law.

We are talking about a judge who did not accept birth certificates as evidence of age (so that she could claim that 27 year old women were actually 15) and refused to let nursing mothers care for their babies until DNA tests were done to prove that they were, indeed, mother and child. We are talking about pre-pubescent children who were subjected to whole body X-ray and MRI scans, who were given gynecological exams to check for virginity and STD's.

What they FOUND was that these kids, because of some inbreeding (closed culture and all that) were prone to a very specific genetic disposition to brittle bones, that the incident of child abuse within the camp was far lower than that of the Texas population at large, and that there was no, zero, ZIP evidence for sexual child abuse.

Jeffs. Rulon and the other people mentioned in your court case?

Were not at the camp at the time of the raid.

Because they were ALREADY IN JAIL.

What is so difficult to comprehend here? The SWAT teams went in and got women and children....and left the men behind.

I mean....hello? Earth to the planet "Let's imprison the victims and let the abusers go free?"

One last thing....knowing what we do about the affect of persecution upon belief systems...what are the chances that Texas 'saved' ANY of those women and children from polygamy and under-aged marriage?

What DO you think their reaction was/is to this raid? Think you've converted any of 'em?

I agree with you....the raid was an example of knee jerk over reaction and government run amuck.

[jaleht]

I oppose it because:

1. It is against the Bible
2. It is against Natural Law Theory
3. It is against the teaching of the Church

To get back to the op, I think this is key.

The fact of the matter is that homosexuality is not the only thing we do that's against the Bible. The Biblical injunction for sodomy is death. You're not going for that, however; you simply want to make people's lives hell by outlawing what is, basically, an act of love. That we don't kill sorcerers, apostates, and those who practice different religions is also against the Bible, but I'm making a wild guess that you'd never wax poetic about our duty to kill sorcerers and apostates. You wouldn't even want to pass laws against such things--it doesn't fit the world you live in.

imo what's happening here is that people are picking and choosing, and proving the culturally limited reality of the Bible while doing so. You can't go to bat enforcing the death penalty for rebellious kids, as that violates the basics of the society you live in. You can't enforce Biblical injunctions on rape, as they are singularly inhuman for the society we live in.

So you make a stand on one of the few things where your society and the Bible agree: homosexuality.

Hence the passion: Your sense of religiosity depends on this last bit of belief where the Bible and contemporary American society agree. So you pick and choose, proving the limitation of the Bible while doing so.

[His Name Is John]

From Post 52:

Who said anything about dominating by force?

I think force is implied when we pass laws that are, well, enforced. That said, I'm in general agreement with your following point about it...

Presumably you want the state to be atheistic, a truly secular (non-religious) state. You want your state to reflect your world view, while respecting others. I simply want the same.

While I respect this on its face, I contend that where we allow religion to be the law of the land, we start on a slippery slope towards oppression.

The fact is that it is against my Christian moral views.

How do gay people affect my life? They don't. But they effect their own. I don't want to openly promote a lifestyle I see as harmful in both this life and the next. In any case, I don't only disagree with acts which are 'harmful to me'. I am also against self harming.

What does 'equal rights' do to my Church? Nothing.

I think this is the most difficult deal in regards to homosexuals and rights. Where good folks think they're doing good, dangitall if some of 'em ain't.

Yes but I would argue that it is clear there should be a difference. Just biologically it is clear there is. Morally there is (so all the major world religions argue). They just aren't the same. Society should stop pretending they are.

I contend that regardless of a god's wants or wishes, we as a society should seek to ensure that we treat folks as equals.

Sure we should treat them as equals in one way. But we shouldn't pretend they are the same. They aren't. Men aren't women. This is where the feminist movement have gone wrong. Rather than promoting women, they tried to make women into men. Women aren't men. Homosexual partnerships are not heterosexual partnerships. We aren't the same, we are all different.

If the majority supported a second Holocaust, would you support that? If the majority supported an atheist totalitarian dictatorship, would you support that?

I wouldn't support it, because I don't get my morality from the majority. But I would believe I guess that they have the right (in a way to do so). That is the rules of democracy. Now I would also believe that if another country wanted to invade that country to put a stop to it, they would also be within their rights.

General agreement.

But I am a bit vague on this issue. I will have to think it over a bit more.

That's one reason I prefer not to debate by hypotheticals (with respect to the intent of the good, right and honorable hypothetical in question).

I see the point in your post. There are a lot of things I think we agree on. I hope you can see my reasoning as well.

[faith]

This thread is meant for clarification purposes:
As a christian, what do you fear the legalization of gay marriage will do to the country, your faith and yourself personally?
Please provide examples of past issues where something was made legal and created a negative issue with your country, faith and/or yourself.

Of course there are extremes on each side, but the majority of people who are pro-legal gay marriage don't seem to much care what a church says, so long as their legal rights are adhered to just like eveyone else's.

I've looked at many responses to both sides and can honestly not see, other than hate or "being gay is gross", any legitimate reasons that would want one to say "gay people who care about each other and live in a relationship shouldn't have the say legal rights as straight people.

Any elightenment on the subject would be appreciated.

There is no Christian fear of gay marriage.
Itt is a popular misleading belief.
Christians are part of a Kingdom not born of this world.
Gay marriage or any other union not between a male and female does not reflect or cause problems for Christians or marriage as far as believers are concerned.

The world can do as it chooses but the results will not change real Christianity.