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.

[kayky]

dianiad:

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?

Am I missing something here? Are you saying that child abuse and marriage for 14-year-olds should be legal?

[kayky]

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.

Secular does not mean atheistic. It simply means that no religious or nonreligious view has a role in the governance of this country.

[kayky]

Sure we should treat them as equals in one way. But we shouldn't pretend they are the same. They aren't.

Separate but equal? Where have I heard that before?

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.

I am a feminist, and I can assure you that I have not been turned into a man! Women do not need or want this "protection" you speak of. It is a code word for oppression.

Homosexual partnerships are not heterosexual partnerships. We aren't the same, we are all different.

Yes, and black people are different from white people. It used to be illegal for them to marry as well.

[kayky]

So....they are a matter of federal fiat and popular vote.

It is not a matter for either. It is a matter for the Constitution and the Supreme Court that interprets it. That is our system, like it or not.

You can't have this both ways, Kayky; either 'civil rights' are given by the culture in which humans find themselves (i.e., government) or they are 'imbued by their creator..." Which is it? If it is culture, then the people WITHIN that culture have the right to decide...and change...what those rights are. If it is inherent..or 'creator given,' then--who gets to tell us what they are? you?

There is only one way in this country: the Constitution's way. The culture does have a way to change the Constitution, but this issue doesn't seem to be headed in that direction, does it? It doesn't have anything to do with how I interpret the Constitution. That is the job of the duly appointed Supreme Court. That is our system. Take it or leave it.

Yep, thanks to the Republicans.

Are you referring to Abraham Lincoln? Do you honestly think that the problems faced by African-Americans ended with slavery? Lincoln would roll over in his grave if he saw the condition of the Republican Party today.

Which is it? Do the people have the right to vote for this, or not? And if they don't, which side of this idea do you fall on?

As I've already said, I'm on the Constitution's side. I'm troubled by your lack of understanding as to how our system works.

Oh, and finally, and this is a very serious question, not meant as mockery---much---who died and made you God, that you can declare what civil rights must consist of for the rest of us?

You can't blame either me or God. It was the Founding Fathers who created this system. This is a serious recommendation for you: Get out your old high school civics textbook and reread it (taking for granted that you read it the first time around).

Well, if he doesn't, that's his problem, isn't it? Doesn't affect the civil rights issue one way or the other.

In theory plural marriage shouldn't be illegal. But we don't live in the world of theory, do we? I have yet to see an example of plural marriage in which women didn't come out the losers.

[Flail]

dianaiad wrote:

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?

You certainly have the right, within your belief system and your own philosophies, to discriminate against anybody you want to; homosexual partners who want to join in marriage for example....

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

[Flail]

His Name is John wrote:

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.

Fortunately for all of us the Founding Fathers crafted the Constitution to protect us from such narrow thinking as you express here. Our country, the USA, was formed in large part by people wanting rid of freedom throttling, mind bending theocracy....see Saudi Arabia and Iran.

[Flail]

So....they are a matter of federal fiat and popular vote.

It is not a matter for either. It is a matter for the Constitution and the Supreme Court that interprets it. That is our system, like it or not.

You can't have this both ways, Kayky; either 'civil rights' are given by the culture in which humans find themselves (i.e., government) or they are 'imbued by their creator..." Which is it? If it is culture, then the people WITHIN that culture have the right to decide...and change...what those rights are. If it is inherent..or 'creator given,' then--who gets to tell us what they are? you?

There is only one way in this country: the Constitution's way. The culture does have a way to change the Constitution, but this issue doesn't seem to be headed in that direction, does it? It doesn't have anything to do with how I interpret the Constitution. That is the job of the duly appointed Supreme Court. That is our system. Take it or leave it.

Yep, thanks to the Republicans.

Are you referring to Abraham Lincoln? Do you honestly think that the problems faced by African-Americans ended with slavery? Lincoln would roll over in his grave if he saw the condition of the Republican Party today.

Which is it? Do the people have the right to vote for this, or not? And if they don't, which side of this idea do you fall on?

As I've already said, I'm on the Constitution's side. I'm troubled by your lack of understanding as to how our system works.

Oh, and finally, and this is a very serious question, not meant as mockery---much---who died and made you God, that you can declare what civil rights must consist of for the rest of us?

You can't blame either me or God. It was the Founding Fathers who created this system. This is a serious recommendation for you: Get out your old high school civics textbook and reread it (taking for granted that you read it the first time around).

Well, if he doesn't, that's his problem, isn't it? Doesn't affect the civil rights issue one way or the other.

In theory plural marriage shouldn't be illegal. But we don't live in the world of theory, do we? I have yet to see an example of plural marriage in which women didn't come out the losers.

Agreed. If the arguments against gay marriage are that gay marriage is not Biblical, such arguments must fail constitutionally via the Establishment Clause, not to mention Constitutional provisions granting equal protection, guaranteeing due process and rights of privacy.

In addition, does a secular government have a legitimate government interest or rational basis by which to concern itself with the private sexual relationships between two consenting adults?

[dianaiad]

99:

It appears that the writers of the Constitution disagree with your position:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Not one word about "But if . . ."

Your interpretation of the establishment clause is incorrect. Giving government funding to a religious institution is a violation of that clause.

How?

Suppose there are several organizations competing for a government grant; the money will be used for, oh....geology lab equipment, or cancer research.

Should the government refuse to consider a religious organization that is qualified on every OTHER count, simply because it is religious?

And if it does, how is THAT not a violation of the establishment clause? Isn't that, then, doing precisely what the establishment clause was written to prevent: establishing an official government position regarding all things religious?

We already know that the courts have found that, absent all other things, religions, as non profit organizations, have exactly as much right to government grants and money as any other non-profit organization. One case, involving a school which allowed community clubs to meet in classrooms after school, was settled when the courts told the school that yes, the local Christian youth club, had as much right to use after school classrooms as the local gay rights group, the local American Atheist's group, and the local video gaming club.

..........and a government grant to researchers at a Catholic hospital is no more a violation of the establishment clause than the same grant to researchers at the UCLA hospital; a grant to fund a geology field trip is a grant to fund a geology field trip, whether the group that gets it is religious or not, and NOT a violation of the establishment clause.

However, excluding religions from any possibility of getting those funds simply and only BECAUSE they are religions?

That is.

Everything has a price, though. If the grant comes with a price in rules and dictates about how the money is spent, then it behooves the recipient to look at those rules very carefully. If they require something that is against the beliefs of the religion...................

Then that religion should not accept the funds.

I can think of a situation where, upon seeing the rules, the church might want to protest, but ultimately the thing is as it is; if you take the money, you abide by the rules. Best know what they are before you agree.

[kayky]

Dianaiad, I'm encouraged to see that you get it. It may be counter- intuitive at times, but in the long run it's what works best.

[dianaiad]

Dianaiad, I'm encouraged to see that you get it. It may be counter- intuitive at times, but in the long run it's what works best.

Kayke, did you read anything in my post other than 'before taking a grant, the religion should look closely at the rules?"

I was going to add something to the above post, but I thought it was getting too long. I kept that point down to a comment about the church protesting the rules.

Here's a situation you might want to think about: a hypothetical situation.

There is a new government grant being offered to everyone who qualifies. The grant is for the purchase of barbeque grills. All you have to do to qualify for the grant is to be in need of those barbeque grills, and willing to give free, or deeply discounted, loans of those grills to anybody who wants to throw a party and can't afford to buy a barbeque grill.

There are some strings attached to the grant. First, the organization may not discriminate against anyone who wants to use the barbeque grills on account of gender, race or sexual orientation--as long as the party is lawful, they can borrow the grill. Fair enough; since all taxpayers helped buy the grills, all taxpayers should have a chance at borrowing one.

However, another rule has nothing to do with barbeque grills. THAT rule states that anybody who gets grills from the government grant has to be available on Saturday (but not Sunday) and has to hire veterans to deliver and retrieve the grills.

Sounds reasonable, right? Even admirable? I mean, who wouldn't want to provide jobs for veterans?

What if the group applying for the grant is Seventh Day Adventist? It's beginning to look, indeed, as if the grant were set up specifically to discriminate against the Seventh Day Adventists....which is a violation of the establishment clause.

Or this not so hypothetical situation: church owned hospitals receive grants for patient care. After having given the grant, the government changes the rules that pertain to the grant. Suddenly everybody receiving those grants must provide contraception and abortion services to all their employees. Now...MOST organizations wouldn't be affected by this requirement, since they already provide those things if they have insurance at all.

Most organizations, since they already provide these services, wouldn't bother to object to the obvious coercive and irrelevant nature of the rule--why spend money fighting against a rule that they already obey? But ONE group has a problem with it. The Catholics, who now have some choices, none good: accept the rule and provide services that go against their doctrine in a major area, return the grant money that they had accepted--under very DIFFERENT rules....or sue.

Can you see where what the government is doing to the CAtholics IS a violation of the establishment clause, by forcing an entire religion to change its doctrine and policies to march alone with what the government wants?

In sum, then, here's the deal:

If a church wants a grant, make sure it can live with the rules before accepting it.
If it can't, then either don't apply for it, or, if the rules don't make sense in terms of the actual grant, do something about it.
If the government changes the rules AFTER the grant has been accepted, DO something about it.

In this country, 'something' means 'sue."