Christians who lobby against gay rights: A question?

Since the arguments I have seen from you are entirely religious in nature (I have yet to hear a single valid secular reason to oppose gay marriage but I'm still open if you have one), is it safe to say that you would prefer a system where religion and state affairs are intertwined? It's pointless to pretend that this isn't a religious issue anyway....

In this system, the government passes legislation reflecting the morality of the largest religion upon the entire population, thereby forcing citizens who do not share the dominant belief system to adhere to the social standards of the dominant religion (much like prop 8).

Would you continue to support "theocratic majority rule" when it comes to civil rights if Islam were the dominant religion in this country and a bill was passed making it illegal for Christians to marry?

In a representative republic that claims to be committed to freedom and equality, does a majority religious group ever have the right to abridge the rights of other citizens without secularly valid reasons to do so? Can you even justify voting on civil rights after the lessons we (should have) learned from the civil rights movement? Do you really think that the Christian white majority would have ever voted to give equality to African Americans if the judicial system had not intervened?


Mike Smith: Because an abusive majority will very rarely vote to give more rights to a minority (especially one they're programmed by religion to hate). These are lessons we learned in the civil rights movement (well...some of us did). Equality and basic human rights cannot be put up for a vote.

Update 2:


What they are demanding are the civil rights that go along with the institution of marriage. Here are a few of them:

Assumption of Spouse’s Pension

Automatic Inheritance

Automatic Housing Lease Transfer

Bereavement Leave

Burial Determination

Crime Victim’s Recovery Benefits

Divorce Protections

Domestic Violence Protection

Exemption from Property Tax on Partner’s Death

Immunity from Testifying Against Spouse

Insurance Breaks

Joint Adoption and Foster Care

Joint Bankruptcy

Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner

Certain Property Rights

Sick Leave to Care for Partner

Visitation of Partner’s Children

Visitation of Partner in Hospital or Prison

Wrongful Death (Loss of Consort) Benefits

It's very much a civil rights issue and to pretend otherwise is nothing short of ludicrous. They're trying to attain a social status where they are treated the same as everyone else. It's about equality.

Update 3:

Andrew R:

1. Slippery slope fallacy

2. A 20 year old cannot legally have sex with or marry a 13 year old because a 13 year old is not capable of giving legal consent. Likening gay marriage to statutory rape is a very poor strawman.

Update 4:

Pink Icing: Using the bible as evidence of the validity of a political standpoint that has its base in biblical teachings is invalid. Those claims (god made man for woman, noah's ark, etc) are unsubstantiated and thus hold no weight in a serious discussion. Point refuted.

Update 5:

Rudester: Welcome to R/S

Update 6:


Marriage used to be defined as a union of a man and a woman of the same race.

Rewind a bit more and marriage used to be defined as a contract by which a man would (in essence) sell his daughter to another man.

Definitions change to meet the needs of a changing society, not the other way around. It's the reason there's a new dictionary every year.

Update 7:

Amelie: You really don't understand the legislative process do you?

Child rapists and gangbangers are legislated against because their actions infringe upon the rights of other citizens.

Update 8:

Sabrina: There are so many things wrong with what you said that I struggle to know where to begin.

1. I suppose then that single mothers/fathers should have their children taken from them?

2. Gay marriage as an issue is about affording gay couples the same privelages as heterosexual ones.

3. The founding fathers weren't all (or even mostly) Christian men. They were deists and freethinkers whose political views were influenced by enlightenment principles, not the bible. The constitution, declaration, and our legislative system are in no way affiliated with any particular religion (if you want proof, read the first amendment).

17 Answers

  • HewMon
    Lv 5
    1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    You're beating a dead horse.

    You know how religious people feel about gay issues, all except religious LGBT people.

    Are you the kind of person that would try to drown a fish?

  • 1 decade ago

    Unfortunately, most people who oppose Gay Marriage, don't fully understand what it is they're opposing, or why.

    Most of the problem stems from the fact that when people talk about supporting Gay Marriage, they're talking about the GOVERNMENT institution of marriage - and NOT the RELIGIOUS institution. Yes, we're talking about that piece of paper that is issued by the government office that says "MARRIAGE LICENSE" on it. The sole purpose of this piece of paper is to notarize that the two people involved are now a single household, and that this imparts various legal rights to the two people involved.

    This has nothing to do with religion. A couple can get a marriage license signed by a judge (Justice Of The Peace). The word "God" doesn't even appear in the ceremony.

    This isn't even "changing the meaning of marriage" because again, the license is a legal agreement between 2 parties - not "man and woman". There is nothing in the requirements that states one party must be a man, and the other must be a woman.

    Because we're talking about a government institution here, it has to follow the federal civil rights laws, which don't just include race, ethnicity, creed, and gender, but also financial background, disability, and, most recently, sexual preference. As the judge recently pointed out with Prop 8, it's unconstitutional for the state of CA to deny people a marriage license due to their gender and/or sexual preferences.

    And all this means is that the state of CA must recognize marriage licenses for gay couples. That's it. Nothing more. Nothing about forcing churches to accept gays, or schools having to teach "the gay agenda" (whatever that is) or any of the other bald-faced lies used to scare people into voting for Prop 8 in the first place.

    BTW, prop 8 was written to OVERTURN an earlier decision VOTED BY THE PEOPLE to allow gay marriages. It was only AFTER this happened, that conservative Christian groups from outside California started pouring MILLIONS of dollars into the prop 8 campaign. More money was spent in CA on campaigning for prop 8 than both Cheney and Obama spent, COMBINED.

    Source(s): It's truly sad how many people don't understand or know, American history. We already went through this whole mess back in the 50s and 60s, when it was considered illegal for mixed couples to marry. Like now, there were hate-spewing so-called Christians pointing to various bible verses as "proof" that God hated mixed marriage.
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Amelie and Mike Smith's responses sadden me.

    True, marriage is not a right - but all the rights and privileges that go with it are NOT provided to homosexuals in domestic partnerships - and THAT is where the equality argument comes into play.

    It is not a good question to ask about the judge who ruled that Prop 8 was unconstitutional. I remind everyone that just 50+ years ago, a black and white could not marry in the USA. This was law based upon voter ballots. Fortunately, the courts saw this for what it was - UNCONSTITUTIONAL DISCRIMINATION. Prop 8 is unconstitutional, and it doesnt matter if 99% of the population is okay with discriminating against homosexuals - its illegal. Period, end of discussion.

    Are you people telling me that you would not be up in arms if 52% of the population ruled that Christians should be prevented from marrying, and it became a LAW?

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    The fact is there is no way of saying why gay marriage is wrong without bringing in religion.

    @Mike Smith: If a majority of voters in the state of Virginia (my state) voted for a bill that said that blacks couldn't marry whites, had to live in a separate neighborhood than white, and couldn't go to the same schools as whites (and not so very long a go they did) would it be wrong for a judge to overrule that?

    @Amilie: I'm not insulted to have my fight for equality, and yes where I live it's not quite equal I still got white folks telling their daughters they don't want them to go out with me, to gays. Now it's true they have been through lees but the principle is the same.

    Source(s): Proud black atheist
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    Man and man can't reproduce, and woman and woman can't do it either. Its like making a puzzle with all the same peaces, you'll get no where and just get tired of it. Psychologically a child needs both a mother and a father. God created it that way for a reason. Women can't do everything a man can do because of physical differences, and vise versa. Women are made more gentle and are natural mothers. Men are made more strong and edgy and natural born fathers. Children need both a mom and dad (but of course this applies to ordered families, and not disordered families with like drug history and all that). A mom: teaches girls how to be ladies and how to be gentle and how to handle their physical differences than men (menstruation, breast growth, pregnancy, menopause, etc) also teaches boys how to value girls and treat them right, and gives him awareness of the girls physical differences as well. Dads teach girls how to value themselves and how to have a strong feminine edge and attitude....Dads also teach guys how to be strong and macho and active. He also is their to teach the boy the responsibility of a man and how a man must treat a girl and how to be a gentleman. If a child has gay parents then they won't get the full package necessary. For example: a boy with 2 mothers come out feminine, not necessarily gay. Notice that most girly guys that are straight never had a father, or had a gay mother. Both masculine and feminine are needed, if not God wouldn't have created it that way. It is like that for a reason. To God the family is one of the most important things in life. A church with disorganized families result in disunity and problems in the church as well. Same as in society, if society is filled with disordered families then that is how society is going to be as well, and thats how Satan want it to be. That is why God doesn't like homosexuality. It doesn't have that balance necessary. The United States is founded by Christian men. The Declaration of Independence, and even the Constitution is based on the Bible and it gives credit to God. If God was so important and was the center to the lives of the bright men who fought for our country and created our form of government (which is also centered on God) then why is it that we only seek God when we are in need? We cast him and his commandments aside and then in times of trouble we ask him "Where were you when we needed you?". When things are good we try to belittle him and even try to take him out of our government, our schools, our hearts, and we take down anything that says God on it or that even has his essence, and we tell him to leave our lives, but we want him there when we need him. That is a shame. God has everything to do with everything in our lives, he is the one who gave us our lives. He is the one who made family. We need his opinion, its the one that most counts. That is if we want to make things right.

    BTW the topic about marriage is a state right and not a federal right. Bringing this issue into a federal right and making it a bill just takes away a freedom in given to the states, and its unconstitutional.

  • Amelie
    Lv 4
    1 decade ago

    It's pointless to pretend that gay "marriage" has anything to do with equal rights. Marriage isn't a right. And it's downright insulting and a slap in the face to the blacks that faced cruelty and discrimination to compare them to whiny homosexuals. What gays are trying to do is change an institution, not gain "equal rights". Even some gays admit that it's not a civil rights issue. Gays are demanding we redefine our language and our culture just to suit their tastes.

    Gays have always had the same opportunities as heterosexuals. In traditional marriage, a gay man has the same options as a straight man. There's no discrimination against individuals. Now homosexuals are demanding special treatment. It's all a scam and everyone knows it, including homosexuals.

    Marriage is simply defined as a union between a man and a woman. I can't believe gays are even concerned about it. Prop 8 simply stated that in the state of California, marriage is recognized as a union between a man and a woman. There is no discrimination against individuals. During segregation, the law specifically discriminated against blacks. I don't see why homosexuals have a problem with civil unions. Because a heterosexual relationship is NOT the same thing as a homosexual relationship. They are not interchangeable. And you're naive if you think politicians care anything about the constitution. The constitution is their enemy. Did you know that "people who make numerous references to the constitution" are on the terror watch list? Allowing gay "marriage" is just further catering to the agenda to breakdown society and the family unit. There's no common law basis. Anything can be justified.

    Goddess, everyone should just live the way they want? Does that include child molesters, gang bangers, and serial killers? And prop 8 does nothing to infringe on anyone's private life. Also, you really don't understand how our government is run. All presidents and high-ranking govt. officials come from the same bloodlines. No one else really has a choice.

    Those past definitions actually are unconstitutional. And society in no way "needs" homosexual "marriage". It's only destructive to society. The idea that homosexual marriage is an "equal right" comes from the idea that males and females are interchangeable, which is a false, destructive ideal.

    Brian, I was responding to Goddess's comment that simply stated that people should just "live the way they want". And like I said, Prop 8 enforces nothing that infringes on anyone's private life. And you're the one who doesn't understand how the powers that be really work. You're just another brainwashed media drone.

    JC, those parents that tell their daughters not to date you are doing nothing that's against the law. All that can be done has been done. There is no longer any discrimination in the laws. You can't change anyone's thoughts or opinions. The sad fact is that racism will always exist as long as humanity exists.

    It's disturbing how homosexuals and liberals try so hard to redefine the institution of marriage, yet they show no concern about all the loopholes in the laws that allow child molesters to walk free. They're self-serving narcissists who don't even care that innocent, abused children aren't protected by the law.

    Source(s): Atheist
  • 1 decade ago

    but really, if everything is about equal rights, why have laws? why cant a 20 year old have sex with a thirteen year old if they love each other as much as say two 20 year olds do? Why is Polygamy illegal, shouldn't they be allowed to be happy too? Laws suck, but they prevent anarchy, you might think gay rights won't cause anarchy, but the questions about any other morality laws this creates, the Western world is sure bound to become as the Western Roman Empire.

  • Rocky
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    I as a Evangelical Christian am vehemently against a state church and just opposed toward gay marriage. It is not the place for religious organization to have influence upon government just upon people. That is influence not control. Every moral based church should fight against legislation which proposes an advancement in favor of any moral issue. Legislative gay marriages puts a stamp of approval upon several immoral practices: adultery, fornication and sodomy. It takes the natural role of sexual partnership and debases it. Legislation most often fails when getting in to laws related to morality, it is not the Government's place but the teaching of the church. Government is to provide protection for the common good of the citizen, not to take over our lives.

    Every moral issue cannot be controlled nor mandated nor legislated by Government. Any government which to dictate the moral climate of its members fails to do its chartered duty. That includes taking care of the poor, taxing its citizens, taking over private industry, by passing our constitution, killing innocent babies, give aid and assistance to our illegal invaders--it is treason. I resent the statement of Mike Smith implying the religious preach hate. If we hate it is the sin, not the sinner. It would be a contradiction of purpose to hate the sinner since we are mandated to reach out to help them--then there is the Love Thy Neighbor policy. How easy it is to confuse a moral issue and turn it into a hate doctrine when it does not even address the issue of right and wrong of the issue. We are not trying to deprive anyone of rights but to protect the rights of the majority who believe certain behavior detrimental to a civilized society. No where in the history of this world has a nation stood that allow the flagrant abuse of morality to sink to the level that is proceeded by social approval of homosexuality. It is a based practice of the lowest kind.

    Government should stay out of the lives of the people. Protect our borders against our enemies, provide a common ground for the construction of infra-structures, leave the poor to fend for themselves with the natural incentives of survival, self-esteem, and self motivation. We defeat the purpose of our God given talents when incentive is removed, we harm those who work when they must also provide for those not willing to work. The issue is to let the laws now on the books do the job intended or remove them. Second, trim the laws that legislate morality. Release the people from over taxation used to line the pockets of influential people and those we elect while stripping the pockets of those who labor. Stop supporting the crooks of our nation who strangle the workers with their false front of aiding through Unions. Stop supporting foreign government who steal the grain out of the mouths of those suffering due to many circumstances and still starve because of the allowed greed of their government. Stop protecting the world with our young men and women,let them lose their young men and women. Protect our borders and dare anyone to cross illegally. Stop the importation of militant members of sect, cults and religions who vocalize and advocate the overthrow of our way of life and our government. Require proof of citizenship before one can even run for the Presidency of these United States of America. Quit sitting on the largest oil field of the world, develop it and quit selling our national soul to those who hate us but make a fortune off our insatiable glut for oil.

    Source(s): An American who is concerned.
  • 1 decade ago

    they only support the intermingling of church and state, when it benefits their agenda; this is such a one way street, if you try and make them see this arguement in a different angle, they falter pretty much every time

  • 1 decade ago

    i cant believe all the hate brian is getting. when are you Christians gonna grow up and let people live the way they want. it seems to me that there is no separation of church in state I say we start electing atheists and gays into office especially up in the presidency

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.