Being against same-sex marriage, assumed to be hateful

I am not sure how to handle a friend of mine who points out anytime I support traditional values or that Christians are being persecuted for their faith in society, he argues that we are hateful because we don’t support same-sex marriage. He argues because of this, gays are hated and persecuted “en masse” and we need to let them have the right to get married. He says when we don’t treat people equally, it gives people the perceived right to bully people (he is always referring to gays when he is arguing these points).

I argue we as Christians have the religious freedom to oppose same-sex marriage and we are, generally, not hateful towards people who are gay. But he keeps assuming we’re homophobic, hateful, persecutors of homosexuals, and we as Christians would be better off just to give up our opposition to same-sex marriage.

How can I counter this? I am a little sick of being assumed to be hateful because I believe in traditional values. Oh, and this person tells me he is a Christian but he doesn’t respect my faith that tells me I cannot, in good conscience, support same-sex marriage.

Help please, where am I going wrong?!?

Why do you have the freedom to restrict the freedom of other people?

 I totally used to think that way.  I used to wonder what business people had telling other people what they should and shouldn't do.  I have also been very impressed with a lot of LGBT people I've met.  

 What got me thinking, though, was two pretty amazing things that happened after the sexual revolution:  The divorce rate in the U.S. went from about 10% to about 50%, and the rate of kids born to unwed parents went from 4% to 40%.  We all share this society, and the preceding changes in our culture have major impacts on us, from our education system to our criminal justice system to where our tax money needs to go (single mothers are, necessarily, the fastest-growing group of welfare recipients in our country).  

 People who initiated the sexual revolution and participated in it weren't trying to deal a damaging blow to American society; they just wanted sexual "freedom".  As crazy as it might sound, I think sex really IS for making babies and making families, and our attempts to divorce sex from that purpose and make it serve our own purposes have caused pain.  I also think the word "freedom" has recently begun to be applied to a lot of things.  Some of those things might really be freedoms; some of them might be behavioral choices that, although in response to genuine feelings and inclinations, require some serious examination- just food for thought.

He argues because of this, gays are hated and persecuted “en masse” and we need to let them have the right to get married.

:rolleyes:

There is no Constitutional right to marriage. People cannot just make-up rights.

If they are so persecuted, why are all these polls claiming that a majority or near-majority support so-called “gay marriage”?

And what about all these parades? Gee, it sure must be hateful and bigoted to shutdown major cities for what? 3-10% of the population to celebrate their sexual identity?

Or how about lumping in GLBTQ issues as a form of affirmative action?

Yeah, such an expression of hatred! Grrr…

And look, you’re going to hear that a lot from anti-Catholic progressives. No matter how much money and recognition they get, they are still going to** play the victim**. :rolleyes:

He says when we don’t treat people equally, it gives people the perceived right to bully people (he is always referring to gays when he is arguing these points).

I got news for your friend:** mandating equality is the OPPOSITE of freedom** and liberty.

It’s very dangerous to have the government issue **equal outcomes as opposed to equal opportunity.
**
Homosexual acts are behaviors, not a race.

I argue we as Christians have the religious freedom to oppose same-sex marriage and we are, generally, not hateful towards people who are gay. But he keeps assuming we’re homophobic, hateful, persecutors of homosexuals, and we as Christians would be better off just to give up our opposition to same-sex marriage.

Freedom of religion is specifically stated in the Constitution.

The conversation ends up like that because they cannot refute the substance of your points.

There’s no point in talking to someone like that.

But you may want to ask your friend if she/he feels the same about Islam, or if Christians have the dubious honor of these largely unfounded, ridiculous generalizations.

Personally, I find a lot of people who support so-called “gay marriage” aren’t interested in stirring the pot with Islam, Judaism, Buddhism or even Churches with substantial % of minorities because in the end, the movement is to serve the whims of big government politicians, but that’s another topic.

And they’re just afraid of them.

How can I counter this? I am a little sick of being assumed to be hateful because I believe in traditional values. Oh, and this person tells me he is a Christian but he doesn’t respect my faith that tells me I cannot, in good conscience, support same-sex marriage.

There’s plenty of threads on here that discuss the issue. I try to get people to argue on the secular economics of it. The short version is that the only reason the state subsidizes straight marriages are for rearing healthy children to continue on the culture. They’ll tell you in return that not all straights will have kids, but a gay couple cannot procreate without third party assistance.

Help please, where am I going wrong?!?

No where. I doubt your friend would listen no matter what you said.

Nobody objects to someone practicing their own beliefs. If you don’t believe in SSM, then don’t do it.

The problem arises because our society is so diverse. There are people who disagree with your position. They believe that if they don’t interfere with your religious practices, then you should also not interfere with what they do among themselves. It is as simple as that.

The libertarian point of view, which is in large part the underlying philosophy of our form of government, would respect your right not to support SSM, while at the same time it would support someone else’s right to support it.

I would not go as far as calling your aversion to it as being hateful. Not at all. However, there might be an issue of hypocrisy, if you believe that you are entitled to live your life according to your own beliefs, while at the same time proscribing the right of others to live the way that they choose to live.

When our tax money is used, freedom of religion— an actual Constitutional right unlike marriage—is violated and our streets are closed so that people can celebrate their supposedly great and awesome sex lives while at the same time demanding it’s private.

Oh yeah and the notion of teaching sex to kindergartners for the end-goal of electing members of the Democratic Party.

Clear enough for you?

The libertarian point of view, which is in large part the underlying philosophy of our form of government, would respect your right not to support SSM, while at the same time it would support someone else’s right to support it.

Libertarians support small government. Getting the government involved in the sex lives of GLBTQ folks increases the power of government as we are seeing.

It’s not so innocent, as Christian businesses are finding out (they have yet to try this on a Southern Black Church, a synagogue or a mosque). Apparently, this imaginary Constitutional “right” to marry comes with the “right” to make someone who doesn’t agree with your “union” to provide services to you which of course are “rights” too. :rolleyes:

Maybe the courts should rule that nude people can get service at high-end restaurants in SF and NYC? And it shouldn’t matter if they drive away the regular customers because it’s a “human right” and “equality”.

:thumbsup:

Sarah x :slight_smile:

The sexual revolution caused all this mess. The idea of “free love” and the social acceptance of recreational sex is the root of the problem.

The arguement is if straight people can fornicate, why can’t gay people? If straight people can live in mortal sin, why can’t gay people?

As Catholics, we need to teach parents and our young WHY we teach what we teach. People need to understand that these are God’s rules, not rules made up by “some old guys in Rome.”

God Bless.

Let’s say I have 2 guys next door living together. If they go away for vacation, I have no problem taking in their mail, watering their flowers, looking out for the place. If one is in the hospital, I would cook some food, shovel some snow, feed their cat if they like. I understand how to be a good neighbor, however, I can still hold the idea that 2 men should not change the definition of marriage to suit themselves.

There would be way less bullying if people followed what scripture teaches, to love your neighbor and to do good for them.

I hope a gay couple next door would extend the same courtesies that I’ve listed above, even if they knew I was a practicing Catholic.

It’s Catholics who say that premarital sex is wrong and yet they are on the front lines in providing care to unwed mothers, and uphold their dignity and the dignity of the child they are carrying. It’s Christians standing on the sidewalks outside the abortuaries offering help to young women. Where are the pro-choicers? They aren’t actually pro-choice, are they?

Bullies are a whole different can of worms. Society currently is trying to make Christians the target of bullying now with their accusations and hateful labels. Same behavior, new target.

These could all be considered very good reasons why we should support marriage for everyone.

.

Why shouldn’t there be a law against marriages for Jews, Muslims or atheists. It was their choice not to follow Christianity?

Holding certain political views does not necessarily make one hateful, thought they might indeed be.

the state gives special privileges to male/female unions for the sole reason that the byproduct of their unions is children. Marriage is for the protection and rights of children. Otherwise there is no reason for the state to care who lives with whom.

gay unions are sterile by nature. They will never produce children and therefore do not meet the requirements for special perks under the law. To permit this natural sterile union to have state perks is to discriminate against all other natural sterile unions such as a mother and daughter living together. It also discriminates against plural marriage because if you can remove the gender requirement from legal marriage you have no logical reason to deny the number requirement (only two). The number requirement is also for the benefit of the children. Nor can you legally argue against incest marriages. Why can’t a brother marry a sister? It used to be for the protection of the children but since children are not the point of marriage then you shouldn’t discriminate against the closely related.

now many pro gay marriage folks will then jump in and say what about straights who choose not to have kids or who can’t have kids. They still meet the criteria of a union for the benefit of children since the couple can change their minds at any time, and the couple who can’t have children can adopt. Next they will say but gays can adopt! But I then say that gays can’t provide the natural right of a child to have a mother and a father. This is a right by natural law as every child can’t come into the world with out a mother and a father. If they can’t be raised by their biological parents then they are entitled to have adoptive parents of both genders.

Marriage is about the rights and benefits for children. Take children out of the equation and there is no logical reason for the state to give people living together special privileges. A lawyer can set up any kind of inheritance or power of attorney for anyone.

I have two possible solutions… stop trying to convince him because he doesn’t want to hear you AND say, “nuh-uh you’re a hater” every time he tries to tell you what he thinks.

We aren’t restricting freedom, actually. We aren’t saying that gay people should be put in prison or anything like that. I find it interesting that we are called hateful for expressing our faith, but that it is not hateful to insult us for our beliefs. I mean, don’t get me wrong - having people actually yell at me and insult me just for saying I’m a practicing Catholic is fun and all, but I definitely don’t see society thinking it’s okay to insult a person for being gay. Note that this is not what we are doing, as we do acknowledge that people really might have homosexual desires, but do not believe it is acting in accordance with God’s will to act on those desires. Of course we think the same thing about heterosexual desires outside of marriage (and even in marriage we think these desires should be handled in their proper context). You can love someone and hold them in high esteem and not agree with every aspect of their lifestyle.

This argument makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. These unions, if between a man and a woman, are capable of naturally producing children. No homosexual union is ever going to be naturally capable of producing children. It is physically impossible. As the state’s reason for marriage is to provide financial benefits to make it easier for a couple to have and raise children, and there is no point for a homosexual couple to have these benefits, it follows there is no reason for the state to allow for the marriage.

Before you decide to say, “So why can a sterile couple get married? Or a couple that doesn’t intend to have children?” I’m going to give you one very good reason. Unless a couple decides to disclose that information (assuming they even know themselves), there is simply no way to know whether or not a couple is capable of or intends to have children. Barring some serious breaches in privacy, the state would have no reason to bar a marriage on those grounds.

And then, since I’m sure you’d like to comment about homosexual couples who would like to adopt or have children via in vitro, surrogate mother, etc. - we don’t believe that it is an appropriate environment in which to raise children. There are studies that support this position, so you really can’t say it’s entirely unfounded. As a note here, Catholic adoption agencies who refused to place children with homosexual couples have been shut down in parts of the country. Perhaps you think that’s a good thing? Seems kind of discriminatory to an organization’s beliefs to me.

I would say that people’s religious freedom is being infringed upon (take any business or individual that has been sued over this issue). So your notion of “live and let live” sounds nice, but is simply not feasible. This also goes against the libertarian point of view, as again, businesses have been reprimanded for not supporting same sex marriage.

Isn’t your final statement hypocritical? Aren’t you in fact doing that same thing that you are accusing us of doing? Don’t get me wrong, it sounded nice and clever, but logically it doesn’t have much merit.

My friend, I’m an older lady (62), married, with 5 grown kids–3 boys and 2 girls. About 10 years ago, my youngest–a girl—told me that she was lesbian. You can’t begin to grasp how both my heart and my husband’s heart broke–and the lengths we went to to try to help her find her way back into a chaste and heterosexual lifestyle. We’ve been through the gamut–there was a time when she didn’t speak to us, a time when every time she was with us she rubbed our noses in her “gayness” (probably like so many in the gay community seem to do–probably to elicit the expected response). I won’t say that nothing we tried could work–the truth is–she made it plain that she never wanted it to work from the beginning and unless someone wants to change, they won’t/can’t. And that’s the truth! Anyway, we finally settled into a quasi-comfortable arrangement where we were speaking but agreed that we’d not bring up the “subject” nor would she–and basically since a person’s sex life is only one facet of who they are as a person–and she is my daughter and a person I love very much-- I settled into praying for her, talking to her and not much more.

A few months ago, she announced to us that she is marrying some 19 year old chick that she’s living with (our daughter is 27). We told her–as Catholics–we’d not have any part of this “faux-marriage”–not attend, pay or participate in any way. And of course, she’s now unhappy with us again. It doesn’t matter–in that we aren’t going to change our attitude. I am so sick of listening to people talk about why the church should accept gay marriage—and if I can say that from my vantage point of being the mother of a gay person, I don’t see why others have such an issue with it. God made the rule of marriage being between 1 man and 1 woman–the church simply reminds of us the rule. People like Obama may think they are a higher authority than God in such laws–but I’m not willing to bet my soul on it. If gay people want to live in sin, nobody can stop them–anymore than you can stop a heterosexual unmarried couple from living together–and I had a son who tried that path too-until his lady friend ran off and left him to raise their son. But PLEASE!! Don’t try to call it something it just isn’t–and it is not, can not and will not ever be a marriage–not between 2 people of the same sex!:

Your “friend” needs to realize that it’s the gays who changed the rules and are trying to swim up stream against a current that has been around from the beginning–and clogging the water pathway for the rest of us with their whining and attempts at legal maneuvering. You cannot demand respect–you must earn it–and demanding that the Catholic church accept their sin and put a stamp of approval on it is no way to even gain respect for gays as people!!! They are NOT a minority in the legal sense–though I PRAY they are truly a minority in numbers–and will become even more so. We can and should love the sinner–and I do SO love my daughter. But we can still call an ace an ace, a sin a sin and recognize when something is real and when it’s not. If that makes gays feel bullied–give them the name of a good psychiatrist or self help group and tell them to get a life!shrug:

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.