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.

[KCKID]

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.

If you read the story of Sodom and Gomorha in Genesis 18 and 19, you will see that even though Lot was a moral man, he lost everything except what he could carry on his back when God destroyed Sodom. He even ended up losing his wife, and because of the choice to live in a sinful culture eventually lost his dignity when his daughters committed incest with him. One righteous man in the center of 5 million hedonistic immoral people won't last long.

Without 'gay' people you would still be a righteous man in the center of millions of hedonistic immoral heterosexual people. You ARE living on Planet Earth. Anyway, since when did homosexuals have the monopoly on immorality?

Take Prohibition for instance. Alcohol used to be outlawed. Now it isn't, so readily available to me is a pint of Southern Comfort for only $8. How am I supposed to resist the temptation to become an alcoholic?

Again, you're already a part of a society that tempts many to participate in its immoral behavior. To play it really safe, perhaps heterosexuality should be outlawed ...?

If the government approves of homosexual marriage and declares it normal, what is to prevent my children and grandchildren from assuming I am just an old fart and saying gay marriage is okay? Here I am a moral person, but what are my grandchildren?

If you don't want to be called an old fart don't give anyone a reason to do so.

This is the gay agenda. They don't want people just to leave them alone, they want people to both approve and participate in their actions.

'Accept' is the word. 'Participate' is nonsense.

[dianaiad]

From Post 30:

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?
...

I stand by the comments presented in my previous Post 27, while retracting any factual errors due to my confusion over exactly which raid was being referred to.

Where we allow young, impressionable children to be "married off", I contend that we as a society have failed those children.

So, where one or a group of religious folks think it's perfectly acceptable that a fourteen year old girl should get married off, I contend we have a duty to ensure the "religious freedom" of the abuser doesn't override the rights (and certain prohibitions) of that young child.

>snip<

but if an atheist boy scout leader...

The Boy Scouts don't allow atheists, so your hypothetical is just that.

I reject any argument that says, "I wish to continue discriminatin', and I'll discriminate against this bunch here just in case some of that other bunch over yonder goes to discriminatin' against me! And I'll hide behind my 'religious freedom' in order to do so!"

Snip remainder.

You certainly have the right, within your belief system and your own philosophies, to discriminate against anybody you want to; child abusers, people who marry fourteen year olds...

but do you have the right to impose that discrimination, BY LAW, upon others?

[Bust Nak]

That's the excuse used to justify using "Sarah's" call for help (who turned out to be a nutjob in another state who had never been near Texas, never mind the FLDS compound........and the people in charge of that raid KNEW THAT BEFORE THEY WENT IN). However, that excuse didn't work for the appeals courts. In fact, the courts SPECIFICALLY found that it was about religion. As it turns out, there was no child abuse, and the 'underaged' married women turned out to be in their late twenties.

That's not what google says. The raid happend on April 8, the call was traced on April 13. And there were underage mothers, out of the 50 or so girls aged 12 -17, 12 were married and 7 have given birth.

It was ALL about the religion and how those people didn't do it the way the government wanted them to do it. You going to argue with those appeals courts?

Nop, just arguing with your version of events.

Did Warren JEFFS commit child abuse? You bet. So did a few of the leaders closest to him.

But guess what? THEY WERE IN JAIL at the time of the raid.

Well apparently there were 12 men convicted. So who were and who weren't at the camp?

[His Name Is John]

Just because it is your religious belief that all secular laws must conform to Bible stories is not adequate justification for the rest of us. You are free to believe as you wish and as your religion requires, but you should not be able to enforce those views with secular laws that apply to everyone. In Saudi Arabia the dominant religion requires the absolute submissiveness of women. Since there is no separation of church and state in Saudi Arabia, religion has become the law of the land resulting in laws that prohibit women from driving cars etc etc. Is this the kind of society you want in America?

No, I don't want a Muslim run state in America. I do however want a Christian run state in America. I don't know if I agree with the idea of separation between Church and state. I have heard good arguments for both sides, and as of right now I have yet to make up my mind.

In any case, I disagree with restrictive laws - you cannot be gay etc. If I was in power, I don't think I would outlaw homosexuality. However, I am extremely against supportive laws - ones which give you benefits for being in a homosexual relationship.

That is the issue with gay marriage. The state saying legally there is no difference between heterosexual couples, and homosexual couples. But even this problem is largely because of what it symbolizes.

If gay marriage is approved by law, how in the world will that affect your right to believe as you do? How will that affect those in your religion who believe otherwise? You can still live and practice in accordance with your antiquated views of homosexuality while permitting the rest of us to move on...

Sure, I don't suggest that a minority push their views onto other people. But I do think that the majority have the right to change the laws in accordance with their beliefs. It is a consequence of having a democracy.

[Haven]

No, I don't want a Muslim run state in America. I do however want a Christian run state in America.

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

In any case, I disagree with restrictive laws - you cannot be gay etc. If I was in power, I don't think I would outlaw homosexuality. However, I am extremely against supportive laws - ones which give you benefits for being in a homosexual relationship.

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?

That is the issue with gay marriage. The state saying legally there is no difference between heterosexual couples, and homosexual couples. But even this problem is largely because of what it symbolizes.

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.

Sure, I don't suggest that a minority push their views onto other people. But I do think that the majority have the right to change the laws in accordance with their beliefs. It is a consequence of having a democracy.

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

[dianaiad]

That's the excuse used to justify using "Sarah's" call for help (who turned out to be a nutjob in another state who had never been near Texas, never mind the FLDS compound........and the people in charge of that raid KNEW THAT BEFORE THEY WENT IN). However, that excuse didn't work for the appeals courts. In fact, the courts SPECIFICALLY found that it was about religion. As it turns out, there was no child abuse, and the 'underaged' married women turned out to be in their late twenties.

That's not what google says. The raid happend on April 8, the call was traced on April 13.

the call was TRACED and positively identified for the public on the 13th. However, the people in charge knew that the call did NOT come from within the compound before the raid.

And there were underage mothers, out of the 50 or so girls aged 12 -17, 12 were married and 7 have given birth.

Actually, since the state tore nearly FIVE HUNDRED children away from their parents, and at the time of the raid, they claimed that 25 mothers were under 18, and that of the "53 girls aged 14-17, 31 have children or are pregnant"


THAT's what 'google' gets you.

As it happens, you are closer to being correct; out of 462 children, only 12 were 'married' and only 7 had given birth. None of those girls was under 14...in fact, none of them were under 16. As it happens, in Texas, you can get married between the age of 16-18 with a parent's consent, and if you have a court order, you can get married at the age of 14.

Now bad as that is, from your point of view and mine, it's LEGAL. Unless, of course, the authorities don't like your religion.

as well, Texas has the fourth highest teen pregnancy rate in the nation, and the third highest birth rate...and in the foster care system, into which all those children were placed, and that Judge Barbara Walther wanted to KEEP them in? --the teen pregnancy rate is 1 in 2. That is, HALF the teenage girls will be pregnant by the time they are 18, and a quarter of them will have had MULTIPLE births by the time they are 18.

So. Texas, which allows fourteen year old girls to marry, and also has a problem with teen pregnancy and abuse that is four times as bad as that in the FLDS compound, sends in a SWAT team to be sure that those kids have the same sort of risk that the rest of Texas has in foster care. Yep, that's a good thing. riiiight.

It was ALL about the religion and how those people didn't do it the way the government wanted them to do it. You going to argue with those appeals courts?

Nop, just arguing with your version of events.

My 'version' of the events is the version of the appeals courts.

Did Warren JEFFS commit child abuse? You bet. So did a few of the leaders closest to him.

But guess what? THEY WERE IN JAIL at the time of the raid.

Well apparently there were 12 men convicted. So who were and who weren't at the camp?

No, there were twelve men indicted, INCLUDING Warren Jeffs and the men with him who were already in prison. Seven were convicted--including Warren Jeffs. that count may rise to 10...if you count the guy who is being charged for bigamy because he married (according to his religion, not to the government) three women other than his first wife--women who ranged in age from 43 -68.

this should be alarming to everybody.

Are the FLDS folks doing something that is morally a problem, to me? Yep. Was Jeffs and co. guilty of child abuse? Yep. Were all the people on the ranch guilty of doing anything but living their religion--and NOT engaging in child abuse? NO...

And so the appeals courts keep finding.

And finding.

And finding.

So you need to figure out who was right here, and also figure out where to stand.

My claim is that if the government redefines marriage so that it becomes illegal to believe that gays may not be married in the sight of god, that the government WILL interfere in internal religious matters.

The FLDS raid proves that it will, even if doing so is hypocrisy personified, and even though the results of those actions put people in more danger than leaving them alone would.

the fact that the USA's own court system has, in the appeals process, consistently slapped the Texas CPS down for it, and have stated rather clearly that the motive for the raid was religious intolerance, not fear for the children (especially given where the children ended up).

I brought this up for a couple of reasons:

First, I am NOT FLDS, and do NOT like their beliefs regarding this stuff. I DO think that what Jeffs did was child abuse and coercion--but most of the people on the ranch are grown, treat their children very well, and the odds of those children being abused is far LESS than that of the general public at large (something else the appeals court found, btw..).

It doesn't MATTER what you like.
Or what I like.

We have no right to tell them how to live their lives according to what we like.

And that is what WILL happen, if the government redefines marriage.

[Clownboat]

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.

Some people find churches/religions morally objectionable, yet they are tax free and that tax burden must be met elsewhere.

Would you be ok with shutting churches down or at least taking away their tax exempt status? Are you consistent with your objections?

[jaleht]

No, I don't want a Muslim run state in America. I do however want a Christian run state in America. I don't know if I agree with the idea of separation between Church and state. I have heard good arguments for both sides, and as of right now I have yet to make up my mind.

In any case, I disagree with restrictive laws - you cannot be gay etc. If I was in power, I don't think I would outlaw homosexuality. However, I am extremely against supportive laws - ones which give you benefits for being in a homosexual relationship.

That is the issue with gay marriage. The state saying legally there is no difference between heterosexual couples, and homosexual couples. But even this problem is largely because of what it symbolizes

You WANT a "Christian state in America," but don't know if you "agree with the idea of separation between Church and state"? Seriously? Sorry, but if you want a Christian state in this nation, then you disagree with the separation between Church and state. It's that simple.

At that point, independently of gays, you must figure out what Old Testament laws you will accept for your theocracy. Will you be Salem? I don't know. However, if you want a theocracy, you must deal with those most unfortunately inconvenient laws recorded in the Bible, and those laws are not limited to gays.

Like...should we kill all New Age folk? Old Testament would say that we should, and the New Testament says nothing that would change it. Should we adopt Old Testament laws on rape? New Testament says nothing about rape, which means those laws are in effect. Should we ok slavery? There are laws for it in the Old Testament, and the New Testament says nothing whatever about abolishing the institution. Should we kill people who wear mixed fabrics, eat shellfish, or work on the Sabbath? Paul specifies circumcision as a nono, but says nothing about mixed fabrics, shrimp, or the days of the week.

[Bust Nak]

the call was TRACED and positively identified for the public on the 13th. However, the people in charge knew that the call did NOT come from within the compound before the raid.

Actually, since the state tore nearly FIVE HUNDRED children away from their parents, and at the time of the raid, they claimed that 25 mothers were under 18, and that of the "53 girls aged 14-17, 31 have children or are pregnant"

THAT's what 'google' gets you.

As it happens, you are closer to being correct; out of 462 children, only 12 were 'married' and only 7 had given birth. None of those girls was under 14...in fact, none of them were under 16.

And I guess you have more than google to back those up?

As it happens, in Texas, you can get married between the age of 16-18 with a parent's consent, and if you have a court order, you can get married at the age of 14.

Well apparently. If you are between 16 and 17 years old, you may apply for a marriage license only if you have written parental consent on an official form in the presence of the county clerk or if you have received an order from the Texas district court authorizing your marriage. I am guessing they didn't provide such documents.

Now bad as that is, from your point of view and mine, it's LEGAL. Unless, of course, the authorities don't like your religion.

If it was legal why were there convictions?

as well, Texas has the fourth highest teen pregnancy rate in the nation, and the third highest birth rate...and in the foster care system, into which all those children were placed, and that Judge Barbara Walther wanted to KEEP them in? --the teen pregnancy rate is 1 in 2. That is, HALF the teenage girls will be pregnant by the time they are 18, and a quarter of them will have had MULTIPLE births by the time they are 18.

O.o That is messed up.

So. Texas, which allows fourteen year old girls to marry, and also has a problem with teen pregnancy and abuse that is four times as bad as that in the FLDS compound, sends in a SWAT team to be sure that those kids have the same sort of risk that the rest of Texas has in foster care. Yep, that's a good thing. riiiight.

Not my point, just attacking the accuracy of what you are saying.

My 'version' of the events is the version of the appeals courts.

Ok, lets see it. I am ready to retract "my version" if shown to be inaccurate.

No, there were twelve men indicted, INCLUDING Warren Jeffs and the men with him who were already in prison. Seven were convicted--including Warren Jeffs. that count may rise to 10...if you count the guy who is being charged for bigamy because he married (according to his religion, not to the government) three women other than his first wife--women who ranged in age from 43 -68.

That doesn't tell me if it was true that none of these twelve men were present.

this should be alarming to everybody.

Are the FLDS folks doing something that is morally a problem, to me? Yep. Was Jeffs and co. guilty of child abuse? Yep. Were all the people on the ranch guilty of doing anything but living their religion--and NOT engaging in child abuse? NO...

And so the appeals courts keep finding.

So Texas messed up, but I still don't see this as religious persecution - the CPS concern was to potect children, this is of course pending on what the "version of the appeals courts" actually says.

So you need to figure out who was right here, and also figure out where to stand...

You know where I stand. Believe what you want but when you act on those beliefs, secualr freedom trumps religious freedom.

It doesn't MATTER what you like.
Or what I like.

We have no right to tell them how to live their lives according to what we like.

And that is what WILL happen, if the government redefines marriage.

Well if it wasn't clear before from our previous conversations. We disagree on whether we have the right to force others to live their lives according to what we like.

[Clownboat]

what does 'polygamy is illegal, so stop excercising polygamy' have to do with 'gay marriage can't be legal, because....' ?

so what you're saying is, I'm against gay marriage, because I fear one day it will become illegal to be against gay marriage ?

By George, I think he's got it!

Look, I"m not a polygamist. In fact, the FLDS has been a PR thorn in the side of my faith for close to a century. I'm not a Catholic; I disagree with a great deal of Catholic doctrine.............

But THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO BELIEVE, and exercise those beliefs, freely. That's in the constitution. Neither you nor I have the right to make them believe, and behave, differently because WE think they are off base and wrong.

Now the folks in the FLDS compound weren't out to make everybody else be polygamists; shoot, not everybody IN the compound was polygamist; the monogamist families were separated and the children put in foster care too. The entire point here was that the folks OUTSIDE that compound decided that they had the right to force the folks INSIDE toe the line set by the government--within their own belief systems, their own homes, their own places of worship--and if they didn't, the government went in and kidnapped the kids, put the women and children on Baptist buses, and pretty much destroyed a few people---and why?

Because the government didn't like the way the FLDS was practicing their religion in their own place.

From what I read of the case, the government didn't like the raping of the 14 year old Wells. How does religion come into this?