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.

[bjs]

For my part, I fear being legally forced to support something I find morally objectionable.

Let me give you a specific example. The state of Illinois recently legalized homosexual unions.

Catholic Charities was one of the largest groups helping orphaned and abused children in the state. The state then said that Catholic Charities had to include homosexual couples in their foster care and adoption program.

Catholic Charities said that this would violate their consciences, but they would refer homosexual couples to other agencies in the state that also did foster care and adoption work.

The state said that wasn’t good enough and effectively shut down the foster care and adoptive work that Catholic Charities was doing in Illinois.

If we could have a “live and let live� philosophy that allowed homosexual couples to marry but also protected those who had moral objections from violating their consciences, then I would be a proponent of gay marriage. However, in the current American culture and government that does not seem to be an option.

[connermt]

For my part, I fear being legally forced to support something I find morally objectionable.

Let me give you a specific example. The state of Illinois recently legalized homosexual unions.

Catholic Charities was one of the largest groups helping orphaned and abused children in the state. The state then said that Catholic Charities had to include homosexual couples in their foster care and adoption program.

Catholic Charities said that this would violate their consciences, but they would refer homosexual couples to other agencies in the state that also did foster care and adoption work.

The state said that wasn’t good enough and effectively shut down the foster care and adoptive work that Catholic Charities was doing in Illinois.

If we could have a “live and let live� philosophy that allowed homosexual couples to marry but also protect those who had moral objections from violating their consciences, then I would be a proponent of gay marriage. However, in the current American culture and government that does not seem to be an option.

Thanks for the response.
It appears you're against the (potential) legalization of a group of people's rights (much like people were throughout history ie slavery, women's rights, blacks rights, etc) because what elected people decided to do?
Cleve,r but makes little sense. Your moral obligation is to yourself, not others. If you live a moral life, you have nothing to fear.
We CAN have a live & let live standard.
Did you take up a protest?
Did you write to your state representatives about your discontent?
Did you research why the catholic group was closed (as I find it hard to believe they would say "this or that" to an organization that's not taking state funds to operate)?
Did you donate time and/or money to the non-catholic organizations to help off-set this new work load?
Did you work to allow gay parents to adopt?
Are you working to help eliminate the bigotry between gays and/or religious institutions?
Did you volunteer to work to help correct this "injustice" in any way?
Or did you use this to solidify your POV?

[Thatguy]

For my part, I fear being legally forced to support something I find morally objectionable.

Let me give you a specific example. The state of Illinois recently legalized homosexual unions.

Catholic Charities was one of the largest groups helping orphaned and abused children in the state. The state then said that Catholic Charities had to include homosexual couples in their foster care and adoption program.

Catholic Charities said that this would violate their consciences, but they would refer homosexual couples to other agencies in the state that also did foster care and adoption work.

The state said that wasn’t good enough and effectively shut down the foster care and adoptive work that Catholic Charities was doing in Illinois.

If we could have a “live and let live� philosophy that allowed homosexual couples to marry but also protect those who had moral objections from violating their consciences, then I would be a proponent of gay marriage. However, in the current American culture and government that does not seem to be an option.

That's a pretty good point, but I have my reservations. There used to be laws against mixed race marriages. The government said we have to recognize mixed racial marriage, should we have continued to allow the ban on these marriages because it would violate the religious and philosophical views of those who felt that mixed race marriages were wrong?

The more pressing question for me is whether the Catholic Charities were permitted to continue to discriminate as long as they weren't using any public money when they did so. Why should the taxpayers have to pay for the discrimination? If the Catholic Charities wanted to discriminate with their own money, could they do so? I can see a problem with a law that says that a private religious organization spending its own members' money can't apply religious based discrimination if it so chooses. We let sexist private clubs discriminate against women, for instance.

[connermt]

For my part, I fear being legally forced to support something I find morally objectionable.

Let me give you a specific example. The state of Illinois recently legalized homosexual unions.

Catholic Charities was one of the largest groups helping orphaned and abused children in the state. The state then said that Catholic Charities had to include homosexual couples in their foster care and adoption program.

Catholic Charities said that this would violate their consciences, but they would refer homosexual couples to other agencies in the state that also did foster care and adoption work.

The state said that wasn’t good enough and effectively shut down the foster care and adoptive work that Catholic Charities was doing in Illinois.

If we could have a “live and let live� philosophy that allowed homosexual couples to marry but also protect those who had moral objections from violating their consciences, then I would be a proponent of gay marriage. However, in the current American culture and government that does not seem to be an option.

That's a pretty good point, but I have my reservations. There used to be laws against mixed race marriages. The government said we have to recognize mixed racial marriage, should we have continued to allow the ban on these marriages because it would violate the religious and philosophical views of those who felt that mixed race marriages were wrong?

The more pressing question for me is whether the Catholic Charities were permitted to continue to discriminate as long as they weren't using any public money when they did so. Why should the taxpayers have to pay for the discrimination? If the Catholic Charities wanted to discriminate with their own money, could they do so? I can see a problem with a law that says that a private religious organization spending its own members money can't apply religious based discrimination if it so chooses. We let sexist private clubs discriminate against women, for instance.

If this story is true, it sounds like there's something else going on there. As you said, there are private organizations discriminating against all types of people. When public money gets invovled, things change.

[spiritualrevolution]

I would like an answer to why people today still might think homosexuality is morally objectionable, which I think is the main point of this topic?

The topics discussed above seems more about whether governments have a right to balance, sometimes by law, "civil liberties" which conflict with "religious values/liberties". We can look to the civil rights movement and anti-discrimination laws and the Morman church's stance on blacks, so we know government protects civil liberties over religious values, so I feel that catholic groups have no right to feel wronged if the government stops discrimination against gay marriage or same-sex adoption. The more important question is why should you discriminate against gays, or at all?

Anyways, I know that a long time ago, populations were small, and communities were small. For a man/woman to choose not to reproduce would have been very hurtful to the community. So I think in the past, people who were homosexual would be encouraged to still marry normally and have children, who could be raised to help out in the fields, grow the population, etc. I could forgive this if we were still 2-3 family communities living dangerously on the borders of ancient empires.

but have we forgotten? we are in 2012!! the population is very big..., having 2 extra children isn't as important as it was back then. i personally have no problems with gay marriage or gays, and i am not even gay or have a close gay friend. I just know that jesus would want us to treat our neighbor the way we would want to be treated, and I know if I was born gay, I would wanted to be treated the same as everyone else. Those who oppose gay marriage are fundamentally against christianity.

[McCulloch]

For my part, I fear being legally forced to support something I find morally objectionable.

Let me give you a specific example. The state of Illinois recently legalized homosexual unions.

Catholic Charities was one of the largest groups helping orphaned and abused children in the state. The state then said that Catholic Charities had to include homosexual couples in their foster care and adoption program.

Catholic Charities said that this would violate their consciences, but they would refer homosexual couples to other agencies in the state that also did foster care and adoption work.

Yes, and the KKK Charities said that it would violate their consciences to include mixed race couples. Your point?

[orthodox skeptic]

For my part, I fear being legally forced to support something I find morally objectionable.

Let me give you a specific example. The state of Illinois recently legalized homosexual unions.

Catholic Charities was one of the largest groups helping orphaned and abused children in the state. The state then said that Catholic Charities had to include homosexual couples in their foster care and adoption program.

Catholic Charities said that this would violate their consciences, but they would refer homosexual couples to other agencies in the state that also did foster care and adoption work.

The state said that wasn’t good enough and effectively shut down the foster care and adoptive work that Catholic Charities was doing in Illinois.

If we could have a “live and let live� philosophy that allowed homosexual couples to marry but also protect those who had moral objections from violating their consciences, then I would be a proponent of gay marriage. However, in the current American culture and government that does not seem to be an option.

Gay marriage is the prominent issue in all religious circles today but in point of fact it is not solely gay marriage as much as it is government involvement in all religious issues. The Vatican is in an uproar over not only gay marriage but abortion and contraception as well. However, the Vatican has turned the latter two issues into a cause celebre, not so much over the moral aspect as the financial, which has created a very complex set of problems; one being financial which is more governmental and two, and most significant, just how dictatorial they're becoming over the individual lives of their communicants. For me, it led to my abandoning "THE FAITH" many years back. I'm one who was up-front about it. For far more, they simply went underground; openly observant while clandestinely doing what their conscience and pocket books dictate. On reflection, if your gay and Catholic and have a mind to marry your SOL. If your a Catholic practising birth control and/or supportive of abortion, if you keep your mouth shut and your head down you've got a better chance of skating; then take your chances with God when your time comes.








That's a pretty good point, but I have my reservations. There used to be laws against mixed race marriages. The government said we have to recognize mixed racial marriage, should we have continued to allow the ban on these marriages because it would violate the religious and philosophical views of those who felt that mixed race marriages were wrong?

The more pressing question for me is whether the Catholic Charities were permitted to continue to discriminate as long as they weren't using any public money when they did so. Why should the taxpayers have to pay for the discrimination? If the Catholic Charities wanted to discriminate with their own money, could they do so? I can see a problem with a law that says that a private religious organization spending its own members' money can't apply religious based discrimination if it so chooses. We let sexist private clubs discriminate against women, for instance.

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP:

What exactly is the christian fear of gay marriage?

That they'd do it and go to consumatin' it right there on the spot?

I contend that in a nation where Christians are the majority, where their institutions receive tax breaks to make a mafioso proud, and where they're able to have the government declare a marriage to be only that which they declare it to be, their main motivating fear must reasonably be concluded that they ain't gonna settle for any argument that doesn't have their unproven "Godly" biases winning the day. Such a statement is of course conditioned on the notion that not all Christians fear marriages of those they ain't havin' to get married to.

[connermt]

From the OP:

What exactly is the christian fear of gay marriage?

That they'd do it and go to consumatin' it right there on the spot?

I contend that in a nation where Christians are the majority, where their institutions receive tax breaks to make a mafioso proud, and where they're able to have the government declare a marriage to be only that which they declare it to be, their main motivating fear must reasonably be concluded that they ain't gonna settle for any argument that doesn't have their unproven "Godly" biases winning the day. Such a statement is of course conditioned on the notion that not all Christians fear marriages of those they ain't havin' to get married to.

Thanks for the feedback. Thus far, there doesn't seem to be any good, just reason to fear gay marriage (that they will admit). Not that it's surprising really....