Re: To opponents of gay marriage

> > Well, hoping that your post is a genuine attempt at understanding and
> > not simply troll bait, here goes:
> 
> I'll try to respond to your points in as non-trollish a way as
> possible.

Thank you for your civility. It is appreciated :)

> > 1. While I oppose gay marriage, I do concede that yes it probably will
> > eventually pass. Lamentably so, but hopefully no time soon...
> 
> Lamentably soley because of your religious beliefs?  Or are there
> other reasons.

Yes, soley because of my religious beliefs and the implications
thereof. As an evangelical, I believe God came to "give life and give
it abundantly" - meaning give perfect life and perfect quality of
life. Thus ANYTHING He requires or prohibits he does so strictly in
best interests of mankind. So to violate what He has deemed as right
and wrong is really only to act against our own best interests.
Although there is no way anyone can follow everything w/o screwing up,
we should try our best. I believe obedience to God is best for
society. Homosexuality, in my view, is simply another case of the
timeless tale of the serpent tempting Eve saying, "Look, it is good to
eat. If you eat of this, surely you will not die." and Eve chooses to
take the bite because it "looks good" instead of listening to God. I
believe this story to be an allegory for every awful decision man has
ever made.

> > 2. I, probably like most who oppose gay marriage, oppose gay marriage
> > based on religious reasons. If you can remove yourself from your
> > worldview from a moment and put yourself in a position where you
> > believe there is a God ordained right and wrong in the world, and
> > believe that people ought to follow that to the best of their
> > abilities, then you'd understand my perspective. It's not some sort of
> > arbitrary bigotry, as anti-gays are oft portrayed as being, rather it
> > is an act of deference to God whom you believe to be very real.

> First, I never said whether I did or did not believe in a God. 
> Second, I will take you at your word that you believe that God thinks
> homosexuality is wrong.  Do you get that from your reading of
> Leviticus?  I ask, because that's the usual source.  If so, what do
> you make of the other instructions in Leviticus--not mixing fibers,
> ways to make animal sacrifices, and other bits that nobody today
> argues we should take literally as a matter of law.

Yes its true that you never said if you did/didnt believe in "a" God.
But obviously you don't believe in the same God I do. Mine thinks
homosexuality to be wrong, yours apparently thinks nothing of it.
Everybody has "a" god - often it is of their own making, and this
"god" thus says whatever its maker wants it to say. IE: "I don't think
homosexuality is wrong, therefore I don't think God thinks its wrong."
Again, another Bible illustration -- the Hebrews abandon God and make
their own golden calf. The opposition to homosexuality is borne of the
desire to break away from speculating, "Well I think God wants/doesn't
want..." and instead ask "What does God want?"

Secondly, no I don't get my opinion of homosexuality from Leviticus
exclusively. I am a Christian, not a Jew, thus I believe we are "above
the law." My understanding of Christian obligations to be moral, thus,
mostly come from NT "generalities" rather than OT "specifics." We are
obedient in order to glorify God, serve Him, and serve other people;
we are not obedient to the law in hopes of escaping damnation. Plus,
once again, I believe God sets his rules for our benefit. We would
thus be wise and prudent to obey Gods rules for our own benefit, but
are not obligated to follow rules that would make us "unclean" and
what not - for Christ's death atones for that - though we may choose
to if we wish.

> Second, assuming you think that God really does want to prevent gay
> marriages, why should that be a matter of civil law in a secular
> state?  Don't you agree that people that have different religious
> beliefs should have rights also?  For example, the Ten Commandments
> have stuff in them like "You shall have no other God before me" and
> "Don't make/worship false idols"--you, of course, are free to follow
> those commandments, but should they be legally required in the U.S.?

This is a good question. John says Christ was full of "grace and
truth." In an effort to be Christlike, it is not always clear when to
be full of "grace" and when to proclaim "truth." Jesus himself for
instance, militantly proclaims "truth" when dealing with temple
hypocrites, yet is graceful and forgiving of people such as the
adultress at the well. I think this is a matter of discernment to be
taken on a case by case basis. In my opinion on the cases you
presented, I don't believe any laws can "force" people to believe in
or obey God (the medieval period is a good example of this) thus its
pointless to make laws saying you must believe in God, because while
they may externally acknowledge it, it doesn't mean they inwardly
believe it. Therefore, such laws would have no good practical results
in.
However, the banning on homosexual marriage, in my my opinion, does
have good practical results as it helps define a degree of normalcy in
society and helps fight the decay of the healthy, ideal nuclear family
- (consisting of Mom, Dad, and kids.) Pretty much, I see this as an
issue in which Christians must fight for the biblical perspective of
truth.

> > On the flip side of that coin, I can see that in a worldview where
> > there is no God, morality is essentially "what-ever-floats-your-boat"
> > for there is no higher source to answer to. "If two people love each
> > other...why not?" is the most oft asked rhetorical question. If you
> > hold your worldview, the answer is "nothing!" If you hold my
> > worldview, then the answer is "because the all-knowing God says its
> > bad." Obviously these two viewpoints are irreconsilable, which leads
> > to the next point of...
> 
> You are making two assumptions that I disagree with.  First, the idea
> that believing in God means opposing laws allowing gay marriage.
> Some folks believ ing God and disagree with you.

As addressed earlier, belief in the Christian God does. But belief in
a God that approves of gay unions is not the Christian God.

> More importantly,
> religion doesn't set laws here.  Second, you think that without a God,
> we must inevitably descend into moral anarchy and chaos.  I disagree,
> but that's a longer discussion.

A discussion I'd be more than happy to have. 

> > <Snip my OG post>

> Gays lack many rights that marriage brings:  inheritance rights,
> beneficiary rights, often adoption rights, rights to be considered the
> next-of-kin in a variety of life-and-death situations, in a majority
> of places lack of protections under civil rights laws in employment,
> and etc.
> 
> These are loving couples that *want* to form stable relationships. 
> That will only help society.

Well, I believe we're playing semantics with the words "rights" and
"tolerance" and such. In the issues you address, anyone can make a
last will and testament. I have tolerance and believe they should be
able to enjoy that right and pretty much all other rights. However, I,
like many people who oppose gay marriage, don't support gay adoption.
(I don't think a lot of people should be able to adopt - including my
straight aunt who just adopted - but that's a whole nother story.)
Since when is adoption a "right" of anyone, anyways? I someone really
wants a kid badly, then have sex with someone of the opposite gender.
That's simple biological mechanics that no one can change.

> > 4. You wrote that "religion doesn't define national policy." That's
> > very true. However, we live in a DEMOCRACY, and thus PEOPLE get to
> > define national policy. Therefore the many people who share my
> > convictions DO get a say in defining national policy. If we want to
> > say, "We don't want our society to LEGITIMZE homosexuality" then we
> > can say so, and cast our votes to shape the policy of the society of
> > which we are citizens. That's the beauty of democracy: everyone gets a
> > voice and a say. Ultimately, in this issue, it will be a matter of
> > majority rules - with the other side fuming made - as there really
> > isn't much compromise between the two factions of this debate.
> 
> Yes, you're right.  You have every right to vote based on
> religious-based viewpoints, and you're right that people will.  If you
> want to support folks that run on a platform of "I want this part of
> Leviticus to be national law, but not other parts," that's your
> perogative.
> 
> I guess I would just ask you again to ask yourself, "who exactly is
> gay marriage hurting?"

I think it hurts society. I think healthy marriages are the best
institutions of government and raising good responsible citizens, and
healthy marriages are on the endangered species list. I believe the
lifting of taboos on extramarital sex since the 60's have contributed
to this. However people at the time said, "Hey man, I need my sexual
freedom. What hurt could it cause?" They didn't have the foresight to
see the results, but God did, which is why he said, "that's probably
not a good idea." I trust God on this too. If we lift the taboo on
homosexuality, why not on other sexual preferences? "If its two loving
caring people?" It will basically lead to the word marriage becoming a
farce.

> > <snip my OG post>

> As to being "intolerant," yes, it is increasingly common for people
> who don't want to grant gays and lesbians equal rights to be
> considered intolerant.  Just like it happened with civil rights for
> blacks in the 1950s and 1960s.  Consider which side of history you
> want to be on.--Joe (n.j.) [mWo]

After a statement like this, it's clear you really don't understand
Christianity, or the Christian worldview. Especially if you're going
to basically ask me "do you want to be on the winners side, or the
losers side that sill forever be seen as backward?" in hopes that it
would persuade me to think twice about my stance.

Christians are (or should be) more concerned about what God thinks,
than what pop-culture thinks. If you'll consider "history" you'll see
that Christ chose to endure a gruesome bloody death, rather than
conform to the wishes of his surrounding culture. Early Christians
would rather be fed to the Lions that poor out libations to the
Caesars. Christianity's roots are in faithfully obeying God in the
face of persecution; in standing up to "the man." Being labeled as 
'intolerant' or whatever for not jumping on the homo-bandwagon is
simply the latest incarnation of this -- and a pretty mild incarnation
at that. Because I concede that gay marriage will eventually pass,
doesn't mean that I will give up my stance on what I feel is right or
wrong. When you ask me to consider what side of history I want to be
on, my reply is naturally going to based on believing that the
ultimate judge of my life will not be "history" as recorded by man,
but rather the ultimate judge will be God.

Anyways, my purpose in all this writing has been hopefully to educate
you on the Christian perspective, cuz I doubt any of this persuaded
you :)

Basically, (1)yes, our opposition to homosexuality is based on
religious grounds. (2) Any human argument isn't really gonna matter to
us because ultimately we believe that God's omnipotent knowledge
trumps limited human knowledge. (3) We don't believe everyone should
be FORCED to follow our beliefs, but at the same time we will
excercise our rights as voters to influence society when we feel its
important. Thanks.