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.

[dianaiad]

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)?

State funds are gathered FROM people that oppose gay pride. And gathered from the majority. What you are stating is that goverment MUST promote homosexuality.

OK, I almost feel like I'm arguing both sides here, but fair is fair. This isn't about 'majority rule.' If it WERE, we'd have to shut up as soon as the majority decided that gay marriage was a good thing.

Catholic Charities in Illinois took public money. That means they took it from homosexuals as well as heterosexuals; by taking public money, they agreed to abide by government rules. They had a choice; either provide their services to everybody who paid taxes, or STOP TAKING PUBLIC FUNDS.

It's one thing to wish to exercise one's religious freedom in one's own faith, belief system and culture. It's quite another to force someone who doesn't agree with you to toe your line, especially if he or she is helping to PAY for it.

That's my problem with gay marriage, after all; not that I feel morally superior to gays and don't think that they have the right to get married in their own faith, or have the government rights; if they don't share my beliefs, who am I to make them behave as if they do?

After all, that's what THEY want to do to ME, after all.

Did you donate time and/or money to the non-catholic organizations to help off-set this new work load?

"Let the dead bury the dead," Jesus said. Let the goverment of the people and by the people go broke persecuting the Catholics.

Did you work to allow gay parents to adopt?

That is a violation of the first amendment to require Christians to support homosexuals adopting other peopel's children.

..........unless they are taking government money.

The government has NO right to dictate to religions how to believe, how to behave, or how to exercise their beliefs, as long as no harm comes to those who do not share their faith, or who are incapable of making informed decisions.

However, as soon as any religion accepts money from the government, it agrees to abide by the conditions under which that money is given. So...if doing so means going against beliefs...don't take the money.

[His Name Is John]

I don't fear gay marriage, I oppose it.

I don't fear prostitution, I oppose it.

I don't fear the use of illegal drugs, I oppose it.

I don't fear slavery, I oppose it.

The link you have between opposition and fear is not true. We do not oppose things simply because we fear it. There is often a link between fear and opposition (people don't like things that might make us scared) but they can exist without one another.

I don't oppose just war, but I do fear it.

I don't oppose the government, but I do fear it.

I don't oppose God, but I do fear Him.

I guess you could say I oppose gay marriage because I am scared of what that will represent. This is partially true, but what it respresents is a society in which homosexuality is seen as just as normal as a heterosexual relationship. I don't feel any fear towards that (some Christians would say I should), I do however oppose it.

I don't buy that clever word play. You oppose it because it's not "normal"?

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

I do not oppose it because I fear homosexuality or homosexual marriage.

Some could right say that opposing something comes from fear itself.

I think my previous post showed this isn't the case.

It's not "normal" to use a computer in 1980, but people did.
It's not "normal" to deep fry a turkey, but people do.
The point is if you oppose something that's not "normal", then logically, you must oppose a lot of things that you likely take part in that's not "normal".

Let me know when those things go against:

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

Until then, my reasons for opposing homosexuality has no connection to using computers. Straw man much?

Thus, I can't believe that your opposition comes from anything other than fear. What, exactly your fear, is up to you to decide.

But it isn't for me to decide that it isn't actually fear?

Beyond that, what you oppose due to it's lack of normality, may actually, become quite normal in the future. Would you then oppose it? Possibly, if you fear it.

Or possibly if the reason for opposing it was that it isn't normal. That doesn't happen to be one of my reasons, please don't say that it is. Also, if I can just make it clear again, I do not fear gay marriage, I oppose it. There is a difference, I would be grateful if you realized that.

So then, based on the bible, you fear it because god tells you to via the bible.

Why did you ignore pretty much my entire post. If you aren't listening to what I am actually saying, but rather claiming something else, why should I bother answering?

But I'll say it once again:

I don't fear it, I oppose it.

And yes, one of my reasons for opposing it is because God tells me it is wrong via the Bible. I don't believe that laws which are confirmed in both the OT and the NT can't just be discarded. Homosexual acts have always been condemned since the foundation of the Church, and just because some people don't like my views doesn't mean I am going to change them.

[Bust Nak]

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?

Well apparently it was to do with child abuse and underage marriage and not polygamy.

[99percentatheism]

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)?

State funds are gathered FROM people that oppose gay pride. And gathered from the majority. What you are stating is that goverment MUST promote homosexuality.

OK, I almost feel like I'm arguing both sides here, but fair is fair. This isn't about 'majority rule.' If it WERE, we'd have to shut up as soon as the majority decided that gay marriage was a good thing.

Catholic Charities in Illinois took public money. That means they took it from homosexuals as well as heterosexuals; by taking public money, they agreed to abide by government rules. They had a choice; either provide their services to everybody who paid taxes, or STOP TAKING PUBLIC FUNDS.

It's one thing to wish to exercise one's religious freedom in one's own faith, belief system and culture. It's quite another to force someone who doesn't agree with you to toe your line, especially if he or she is helping to PAY for it.

That's my problem with gay marriage, after all; not that I feel morally superior to gays and don't think that they have the right to get married in their own faith, or have the government rights; if they don't share my beliefs, who am I to make them behave as if they do?

After all, that's what THEY want to do to ME, after all.

Did you donate time and/or money to the non-catholic organizations to help off-set this new work load?

"Let the dead bury the dead," Jesus said. Let the goverment of the people and by the people go broke persecuting the Catholics.

Did you work to allow gay parents to adopt?

That is a violation of the first amendment to require Christians to support homosexuals adopting other peopel's children.

..........unless they are taking government money.

The government has NO right to dictate to religions how to believe, how to behave, or how to exercise their beliefs, as long as no harm comes to those who do not share their faith, or who are incapable of making informed decisions.

However, as soon as any religion accepts money from the government, it agrees to abide by the conditions under which that money is given. So...if doing so means going against beliefs...don't take the money.

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 . . ."

[Moses Yoder]

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.

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?

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?

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.

[Flail]

I don't fear gay marriage, I oppose it.

I don't fear prostitution, I oppose it.

I don't fear the use of illegal drugs, I oppose it.

I don't fear slavery, I oppose it.

The link you have between opposition and fear is not true. We do not oppose things simply because we fear it. There is often a link between fear and opposition (people don't like things that might make us scared) but they can exist without one another.

I don't oppose just war, but I do fear it.

I don't oppose the government, but I do fear it.

I don't oppose God, but I do fear Him.

I guess you could say I oppose gay marriage because I am scared of what that will represent. This is partially true, but what it respresents is a society in which homosexuality is seen as just as normal as a heterosexual relationship. I don't feel any fear towards that (some Christians would say I should), I do however oppose it.

I don't buy that clever word play. You oppose it because it's not "normal"?

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

I do not oppose it because I fear homosexuality or homosexual marriage.

Some could right say that opposing something comes from fear itself.

I think my previous post showed this isn't the case.

It's not "normal" to use a computer in 1980, but people did.
It's not "normal" to deep fry a turkey, but people do.
The point is if you oppose something that's not "normal", then logically, you must oppose a lot of things that you likely take part in that's not "normal".

Let me know when those things go against:

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

Until then, my reasons for opposing homosexuality has no connection to using computers. Straw man much?

Thus, I can't believe that your opposition comes from anything other than fear. What, exactly your fear, is up to you to decide.

But it isn't for me to decide that it isn't actually fear?

Beyond that, what you oppose due to it's lack of normality, may actually, become quite normal in the future. Would you then oppose it? Possibly, if you fear it.

Or possibly if the reason for opposing it was that it isn't normal. That doesn't happen to be one of my reasons, please don't say that it is. Also, if I can just make it clear again, I do not fear gay marriage, I oppose it. There is a difference, I would be grateful if you realized that.

So then, based on the bible, you fear it because god tells you to via the bible.

Why did you ignore pretty much my entire post. If you aren't listening to what I am actually saying, but rather claiming something else, why should I bother answering?

But I'll say it once again:

I don't fear it, I oppose it.

And yes, one of my reasons for opposing it is because God tells me it is wrong via the Bible. I don't believe that laws which are confirmed in both the OT and the NT can't just be discarded. Homosexual acts have always been condemned since the foundation of the Church, and just because some people don't like my views doesn't mean I am going to change them.

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?

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...

[Flail]

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.

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?

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?

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.

So you think the gay agenda is for heterosexuals to suddenly become gay? Speak for yourself, but that won't happen to me.

Is the law the only thing keeping your children from becoming gay or you from becoming alcoholic? Get ahold of yourself. (pun intended)

[dianaiad]

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?

Well apparently it was to do with child abuse and underage marriage and not polygamy.

That's the excuse used for the raid.

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.

...............and the first judge who allowed the raid and did all the damage?

Got reversed. A lot.

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?

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.

[dianaiad]

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)?

State funds are gathered FROM people that oppose gay pride. And gathered from the majority. What you are stating is that goverment MUST promote homosexuality.

OK, I almost feel like I'm arguing both sides here, but fair is fair. This isn't about 'majority rule.' If it WERE, we'd have to shut up as soon as the majority decided that gay marriage was a good thing.

Catholic Charities in Illinois took public money. That means they took it from homosexuals as well as heterosexuals; by taking public money, they agreed to abide by government rules. They had a choice; either provide their services to everybody who paid taxes, or STOP TAKING PUBLIC FUNDS.

It's one thing to wish to exercise one's religious freedom in one's own faith, belief system and culture. It's quite another to force someone who doesn't agree with you to toe your line, especially if he or she is helping to PAY for it.

That's my problem with gay marriage, after all; not that I feel morally superior to gays and don't think that they have the right to get married in their own faith, or have the government rights; if they don't share my beliefs, who am I to make them behave as if they do?

After all, that's what THEY want to do to ME, after all.

Did you donate time and/or money to the non-catholic organizations to help off-set this new work load?

"Let the dead bury the dead," Jesus said. Let the goverment of the people and by the people go broke persecuting the Catholics.

Did you work to allow gay parents to adopt?

That is a violation of the first amendment to require Christians to support homosexuals adopting other peopel's children.

..........unless they are taking government money.

The government has NO right to dictate to religions how to believe, how to behave, or how to exercise their beliefs, as long as no harm comes to those who do not share their faith, or who are incapable of making informed decisions.

However, as soon as any religion accepts money from the government, it agrees to abide by the conditions under which that money is given. So...if doing so means going against beliefs...don't take the money.

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 . . ."

I don't know about you, but it seems to me that if the government gives money to a religion, and allows it to use that money (or with-hold it) in a way forbidden by law to a NON-religious group, that is "establishing a religion' in a very blatant manner.

Taking money from the government in that way is making a deal with the devil, seems to me. Everything has a price, and government grants come with pretty hefty ones. If you don't want to pay it, don't take the money.

I can hear it now, though...Ah HA!!! What about TAX EXEMPTIONS!!!

Different critter. If religions cannot participate in government as entities (and they can't...) and they don't make a profit (and most don't) then it is NOT FAIR to charge them taxes, for exactly the same reason it is NOT FAIR for, say, Catholic Charities to take government money that gays pay too--and not offer the services that they have paid for.

[JoeyKnothead]

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.