Why do so many conservative Christians feel they have to dictate how the rest of us live?

[Cammie]

I just laugh because your post is the exact type of thinking that made me start this thread..

 

"Loosely Christian"  really, where do you get off?  Yup, I may not be your type of Christian but who made you the final determiner?  How do you get to decide that you are a "correct" Christian and all the rest of us are "loosely Christian."  Just because we disagree with you?

 

 

[Susan Wise Bauer]

OK, Cammie, that's not quite the tone I was hoping for.

 

Point out where you believe the poster has gone wrong, without escalating the rhetoric.

 

SWB

[Pam in CT]

What the what? Where on earth do you get #2? What's to look at with Chick-fil-A? People used their free speech to protest CFA's donating to a hate organization. It had absolutely nothing to do with Christianity. There is nothing hateful, bigoted, or militant about deciding not to eat at a fast food restaurant!

 

Agreed.  There isn't.

 

The irony is: avoiding such businesses is precisely what several other posters here who have expressed -- far more constructively -- reservations about SSM have RECOMMENDED that people do if they are troubled by the selective cake-baking or similar practices.

 

 

It is a mighty long thread.  I do get that.  Still.

[Cammie]

Apologies.

[Cindy in FL.]

Which people?

 

Me, I just feel sorry for the children of these people. :(

[Sdel]

I just got back from my anniversary weekend so I am just trying to catch up on this very interesting thread. Has anyone answered why homosexuality is considered the big sin? I would like to understand why bakers go to so much trouble to avoid baking a cake for a gay wedding but happily make cakes for adulterers, people who have been married several times, gluttons, etc. Does it say somewhere in the bible that the other sins are not really a big deal but homosexuality is the big thing?

 

I'm certainly no bible expert, but my understanding is that homosexuality is a sin kind of like divorce is a sin.  They are both sins that affect families and the raising of children.  Not to start an argument but look at the filter of the times back then.  Marriage was not about love then either, but strengthening family or political alliances through the production of children.  I can easily see why homosexuality is presented the way it is in the bible. 

 

Stefanie

[Cammie]

If the person who wrote the book (literally) on pubic apologies likes my public apology...that means something, right??!  :lol:

[texasmama]

If the person who wrote the book (literally) on pubic apologies likes my public apology...that means something, right??!  :lol:

 

I'm thinking probably so.  ;)

 

Cake and pie for you.  :D

[Cammie]

I'm thinking probably so.  ;)

 

Cake and pie for you.  :D

 

But no blue cheese...can't stand the stuff!  I would accept cupcakes!

[Cindy in FL.]

I think this behavior is appalling and I would never tolerate or condone it. That kind of behavior is wrong. It's hateful, horrible, and unChristian. I can believe homosexuality is wrong and even say it without ever behaving that way.

 

Soooo, let's picture a middle school kid getting called a faggot every day as he walks home from school. Maybe a group of kids follow him for blocks, taunting him mercilessly. No violence, but name calling about his " deviant" sexuality. There are no parents there to stop or help. Obviously public manners are lacking. Months go by, things worsen. School won't help because its off their property. His parents cant get the bullies parents to stop. The child is depressed and traumatized.

The child attempts suicide... This is a type of free speech you would defend in a public square? So we want the gay child to speak to his bullies, and this is the beautiful thing of free speech? How far would you let it go before its not such " a beautiful thing?" I'm sorry, but really, this makes me want to vomit. I seriously need to leave this thread-- I've known for a long time that there were out of the ordinary viewpoints on this board, but some of these posts are bone chillingly scary.

[Amira]

I think there is a lot of fear in the conservative Christian circles that giving more "freedom" and "power" to homosexuals means having our freedom taken from us.

I think there is too but I don't understand why. How does giving anyone the same civil right others have a threat to your freedom? I haven't lost any freedom since gay marriage started to be legalized and sexual orientation was added as a protected class in some states.

[Amira]

If the person who wrote the book (literally) on pubic apologies likes my public apology...that means something, right??! :lol:

I liked this so much that I need to add a :rofl:

[justasque]

1) We believe it's a bad thing for our country - the breakdown of the traditional family has huge implications for our society. Okay, I know I'm getting attacked for that one, but it is what I firmly believe. I don't hate homosexuals or divorcees or adulterers or any sinners. I'm a sinner, too. 

 

Momof3, could you expand on this a bit?  How does same-sex marriage break down the traditional family?  

 

My perspective is that it's good for society when two people commit to being together for the rest of their lives, taking care of each other in sickness and in health.  For the most part, the people entering same-sex marriages are not likely to enter life-long opposite-sex marriages if same-sex marriage is not allowed.  In fact, many of these couples have already been together for decades, taking care of one another and possibly caring for children.  

 

Since these are not people who generally have been in traditional nuclear families to begin with, isn't it a good thing to bring them into the fold of traditional values, rather than pushing them away from it?

 

Or, to put it another way, what do you see as the appropriate, honorable path for a homosexual adult to walk?  

Now that we as a society understand more about homosexuality, how should we treat our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters, sons and daughters, friends and relatives?  How should we treat their relationships?

[Vera]

Wow. I have 4 little kids running/crawling around right now - and I only had time to skim through the first page... It seems (maybe others have weighed in since) that this 'conversation' is very one-sided. A lot of anti-Christian, former-Christian, loosely-Christian input...

 

I'm not angry here...just going to speak my mind. :)

 

I agree with creekland's first comment. I am a conservative Christian. I'm not reformed (I don't believe that the Church fulfills God's promises to Israel and so we need to establish a Christian nation, etc.)... Most Christians in my circle vote against homosexuality because

 

1) We believe it's a bad thing for our country - the breakdown of the traditional family has huge implications for our society. Okay, I know I'm getting attacked for that one, but it is what I firmly believe. I don't hate homosexuals or divorcees or adulterers or any sinners. I'm a sinner, too.

 

2) Homosexuals are some of the most hateful, bigoted, militantly anti-Christian people in this country. I don't get why I am supposed to tolerate people who are intolerant themselves? Look at Chick Fil A. We're not voting one way because we don't like you, or we want to control your lives. We know what's coming next.

 

Has anyone mentioned yet... The mayor of Houston recently demanded the SERMONS of PASTORS who spoke out against homosexuality. In Canada, pastors are being JAILED for SPEAKING against homosexuality. (Once again, not angry here, just trying to be heard in what I feel is a largely one-sided conversation.) Why is it "hate speech" for me to say that homosexuality is sin against God, but "free speech" for gays to kiss at Chick-Fil-A?

 

I think there is a lot of fear in the conservative Christian circles that giving more "freedom" and "power" to homosexuals means having our freedom taken from us.

Wow! This left me speechless. I don't even know where to begin. I think cooling off might be a good start.

[Tanaqui]

I think there is too but I don't understand why. How does giving anyone the same civil right others have a threat to your freedom? I haven't lost any freedom since gay marriage started to be legalized and sexual orientation was added as a protected class in some states.

 

I can understand it, but my explanation isn't very pretty. It's a sign that they aren't the ones making the rules - and that loss of control can be very scary when you're accustomed to your rules being the ones everybody goes by.

 

Not that anybody phrases it *that* way, but you'll note you can never pin anybody down on how it's a loss of freedom or how it could possibly be damaging to anybody other than the people involved in the relationship*.

 

* Not that there's any evidence that it is damaging to them either, but you know what I mean.

[Amira]

Here's another question I have. While I think that anyone is allowed to believe gay marriage is wrong, I don't get how it helps to keep saying it now because everyone (and I mean everyone) knows that there are people opposed to gay marriage. Harping on that only seems to hurt and doesn't further the cause of the people saying it.

 

I certainly don't want people to feel like they're not allowed to say they're opposed to it but I can't think of any examples of a repeated and insistent declaration of some belief makes others accept it, especially when it's a belief others have abandoned.

 

It seems to me that the only real concern churches should have is whether they can perform their religious ceremonies freely and in the manner they decide. I don't see any evidence at all that this is a legitimate concern in the US right now (or in the future, but yelling about it now won't make it less likely in the future).

[lionfamily1999]

Dotwithaperiod - There is a difference between speaking 'in the public square' and targeting an individual, following them, and harassing them.  That was my point.  It doesn't require a new law or addition to the law specifying who can't be targeted for such treatment, because right now it is illegal for anyone to be treated like that.

 

 

[kiana]

2) Homosexuals are some of the most hateful, bigoted, militantly anti-Christian people in this country. I don't get why I am supposed to tolerate people who are intolerant themselves? Look at Chick Fil A. We're not voting one way because we don't like you, or we want to control your lives. We know what's coming next.

 

What? What on earth? How is boycotting a company hateful and bigoted? Why does tolerance require that I continue to patronize them?

[lionfamily1999]

As far as a loss of freedom, there is concern that speech will be hindered, that churches will no longer be able to identify fornication as a sin, that parents will not be allowed to teach their children what they believe is the truth, that individuals will no longer be allowed to openly believe such a thing without facing penalties. 

 

Examples of something being said enough causing change...  well, there are a number of those.  If you repeat something often enough, people will start to believe it.  Isn't that how Pepsi became the drink of a new generation?

[zoobie]

Agreed. There isn't.

 

The irony is: avoiding such businesses is precisely what several other posters here who have expressed -- far more constructively -- reservations about SSM have RECOMMENDED that people do if they are troubled by the selective cake-baking or similar practices.

 

 

It is a mighty long thread. I do get that. Still.

There is a difference in an individual choosing not to patronize a business and an individual not being allowed in a business. Do you really think gay people should have to resort to Green Books? Besides that, as it has been repeatedly explained, the "free market" is a utopian ideal with no basis in reality.

[Peaceful Isle]

I see the future of this thread ..being locked very soon, lol. Post, before it's too late!!!

[ChocolateReignRemix]

As far as a loss of freedom, there is concern that speech will be hindered, that churches will no longer be able to identify fornication as a sin, that parents will not be allowed to teach their children what they believe is the truth, that individuals will no longer be allowed to openly believe such a thing without facing penalties. 

 

Examples of something being said enough causing change...  well, there are a number of those.  If you repeat something often enough, people will start to believe it.  Isn't that how Pepsi became the drink of a new generation?

 

Asked and answered throughout this thread.  Religious (and other beliefs) are 100% are protected under the First Amendment.  What is not acceptable is using those beliefs to discriminate against someone in the public sphere.

 

Stormfront members can continue to rail against minorities as much as they want.  What they can't do is discriminate if they own a business.

The owners of CFA can preach against homosexuals all they want.  (Of course, I am free to disagree as well.)  What they can't do is refuse to serve a gay couple a chicken sandwich. 

 

It really is pretty simple.

[*Lulu*]

As far as a loss of freedom, there is concern that speech will be hindered, that churches will no longer be able to identify fornication as a sin, that parents will not be allowed to teach their children what they believe is the truth, that individuals will no longer be allowed to openly believe such a thing without facing penalties.

 

Examples of something being said enough causing change... well, there are a number of those. If you repeat something often enough, people will start to believe it. Isn't that how Pepsi became the drink of a new generation?

Here is the thing, the church could remove worries about speech hindered by getting the government out of the religious marriage business. But they won't. Because that isn't what they really want.

 

One of the oft repeated arguments is that school age children will be taught that it is okay to be gay. I have yet to have someone give me a satisfactory explanation of why that is one whit different than teaching that girls can wear pants, have uncovered hair, to have divorced parents, have parents that drink socially, or that it is acceptable to belong to a religion other than Christianity. All of these are things that some Christian sub groups consider sinful. Why is homosexuality different?

[Amy in NH]

As far as a loss of freedom, there is concern that speech will be hindered, that churches will no longer be able to identify fornication as a sin, that parents will not be allowed to teach their children what they believe is the truth, that individuals will no longer be allowed to openly believe such a thing without facing penalties. 

 

Examples of something being said enough causing change...  well, there are a number of those.  If you repeat something often enough, people will start to believe it.  Isn't that how Pepsi became the drink of a new generation?

 

Regarding the bolded: Not around here!

 

How is allowing gays the same rights afforded to other married people doing any of the things in your first paragraph?  I just don't follow the logic.

[justasque]

...

I'm not angry here...just going to speak my mind. :)

...

 

2) Homosexuals are some of the most hateful, bigoted, militantly anti-Christian people in this country. I don't get why I am supposed to tolerate people who are intolerant themselves? Look at Chick Fil A. We're not voting one way because we don't like you, or we want to control your lives. We know what's coming next.

...

 

I think there is a lot of fear in the conservative Christian circles that giving more "freedom" and "power" to homosexuals means having our freedom taken from us.

 

I welcome you speaking your mind on this thread, though I encourage you to go back and read the rest of the thread as there is much information there that you may not have encountered or thought about before.  

 

I am guessing from the #2 in your post above that you don't know many people whom you know to be gay.  

 

You know how people who don't know any homeschoolers have a lot of inaccurate perceptions of us?  Like our kids don't have friends and won't ever amount to much, and we might actually be homeschooling to hide abuse?  

 

And you know how people who only know one homeschooling family, maybe one with a socially-awkward kid, think all homeschoolers are exactly like that family, and all of our kids will be socially awkward just like that one kid?  

 

And you know how people who know a lot of homeschoolers tend to have a more favorable and accurate perception?

 

Think, for a minute, about where you are getting your perception of homosexuals.  Is it from the media, more specifically from sensationalist news shows and click-bait online articles that make money through manipulating your emotions and getting you all riled up about something?  Or is it from getting to know ordinary, everyday homosexuals who might live in your neighborhood, work with your husband, come to your family reunions, or even go to your church?  

 

Because it sounds like you are stereotyping a whole group of very diverse people based on a few public actions by groups whose organizational purpose is to speak, loudly and publicly, on gay issues (in the same way that the Family Research Council, or HSLDA, speaks publicly on the issues they are set up to advocate for).

 

The reason I bring this up is your Chick-fil-A example.  Here's what happened:  The company gave money to a group that promoted things that gay folks and their allies don't approve of, so the gay folks said "hey, let's not give our money to this company".  Other folks said "hey, we actually agree with the way C-F-A spent their money, so let's go there more often, to make up for the possible loss of business from the gays who are boycotting".  This is how we do things in America.  We don't say "everyone has to believe X".  Instead, we let people say what they believe, AND we let others agree or disagree, and everyone can spend their money accordingly.    This is a good thing, right?

[Slartibartfast]

1) We believe it's a bad thing for our country - the breakdown of the traditional family has huge implications for our society. Okay, I know I'm getting attacked for that one, but it is what I firmly believe. I don't hate homosexuals or divorcees or adulterers or any sinners. I'm a sinner, too.

I find it tragic that trash like this is on television but couples who have been together for decades are seen as undeserving.

 

http://www.fyi.tv/shows/married-at-first-sight

 

If people love one another and want to commit to one another I believe it is a violation of their civil rights to deny them the same rights as anyone.

 

I am Native American, to me traditional marriage is that I can take my husband's things and drop them off at his mother's if I chose to no longer be married to him. One cannot define traditional marriage for other cultures. Many tribes supported gay marriage for hundreds of years and perform gay marriages today. True American "traditional marriage" includes gay marriage.

 

I know quite a few people who are gay and the vast majority of them are Christian. They are not anti-Christian.

[Amira]

As far as a loss of freedom, there is concern that speech will be hindered, that churches will no longer be able to identify fornication as a sin, that parents will not be allowed to teach their children what they believe is the truth, that individuals will no longer be allowed to openly believe such a thing without facing penalties.

 

Examples of something being said enough causing change... well, there are a number of those. If you repeat something often enough, people will start to believe it. Isn't that how Pepsi became the drink of a new generation?

I guess I'm just not concerned about those things actually coming to pass, especially that I wouldn't be allowed to teach my children what I believe. I think there are consequences for our beliefs, but I don't foresee legal penalties for them.

 

Yes, I agree that slogans can change people's buying habits. But I don't think that religious people telling non-religious people they are sinners has ever changed the mind of a non-religious person.

[Vera]

Schools don't need to teach children that it is OK to be gay. They are learning that anyway. The younger generation overwhelmingly supports gay rights. When my son went to the prom with his boyfriend they had people coming up to them all night just to congratulate them and give them a hug. It was beautiful.

[justasque]

As far as a loss of freedom, there is concern that speech will be hindered, that churches will no longer be able to identify fornication as a sin, that parents will not be allowed to teach their children what they believe is the truth, that individuals will no longer be allowed to openly believe such a thing without facing penalties. 

 

Examples of something being said enough causing change...  well, there are a number of those.  If you repeat something often enough, people will start to believe it.  Isn't that how Pepsi became the drink of a new generation?

I think it's important, whenever we undergo societal change, to make sure that we are being careful to maintain religious freedom and free speech rights.  However - 

 

When a family puts their child in a public school, they are going to get a somewhat middle-of-the-road, generic-flavor education when it comes to social issues and values.  They are going to be in class with children from a wide range of families, with a wide range of beliefs.  The school, ideally, is not going to take a stand on which values are the "right" ones, and is unlikely to speak negatively about characteristics of these families and/or their beliefs.  And the school is, ideally, going to discourage students from making value judgements about other students' beliefs.

 

Thus families who want their children to get an education based on a particular set of religious beliefs and values, among other families who share and live those values, should send their children to private faith-based schools, and their churches should make an effort to create and support these schools.

 

Generally speaking, lots of people believe fornication is a sin, but they refrain from discussing it in the workplace, in school, or in the company of people who may believe otherwise.  It's really just being polite.  Adding homosexuality to the already-long list of subjects on which one should be thoughtful when speaking in public really shouldn't be that hard to do.

[lionfamily1999]

Asked and answered throughout this thread.  Religious (and other beliefs) are 100% are protected under the First Amendment.  What is not acceptable is using those beliefs to discriminate against someone in the public sphere.

 

Stormfront members can continue to rail against minorities as much as they want.  What they can't do is discriminate if they own a business.

The owners of CFA can preach against homosexuals all they want.  (Of course, I am free to disagree as well.)  What they can't do is refuse to serve a gay couple a chicken sandwich. 

 

It really is pretty simple.

Well, if it's been asked and answered so many times, then I have to wonder why someone asked it again ;)  I was just answering their question.

 

 

Here is the thing, the church could remove worries about speech hindered by getting the government out of the religious marriage business. But they won't. Because that isn't what they really want.

 

One of the oft repeated arguments is that school age children will be taught that it is okay to be gay. I have yet to have someone give me a satisfactory explanation of why that is one whit different than teaching that girls can wear pants, have uncovered hair, to have divorced parents, have parents that drink socially, or that it is acceptable to belong to a religion other than Christianity. All of these are things that some Christian sub groups consider sinful. Why is homosexuality different?

 

I guess it depends on which church you're speaking about.  I'm a member of a church (guess that makes me part of 'them') and our church is more concerned with whether or not our pastor will lose his license to perform state recognized marriages if he refuses to oversee same-sex marriages.  

Regarding the bolded: Not around here!

 

How is allowing gays the same rights afforded to other married people doing any of the things in your first paragraph?  I just don't follow the logic.

Because it becomes an "either you agree with us or else you are wrong and since you're wrong you should have to shut up" situation.  Really, there are plenty of similarities with this and the evolution/creation debate.  The same way that there are those who want to require a child being taught one way, because that is *right* and silence those who disagree.

 

It's also like the abortion debate.  

 

Anymore, if you say, "This is wrong, I disagree", you become someone who is hateful or stupid and is somehow hurting society by saying so.  And that is the concern.

[lionfamily1999]

I guess I'm just not concerned about those things actually coming to pass, especially that I wouldn't be allowed to teach my children what I believe. I think there are consequences for our beliefs, but I don't foresee legal penalties for them.

 

Yes, I agree that slogans can change people's buying habits. But I don't think that religious people telling non-religious people they are sinners has ever changed the mind of a non-religious person.

I'm not worried about it either.  If it did happen, then it would not change what I taught anyway.

 

Sure, and most Christians would agree with you.  It's not the person talking that changes the heart/mind of the person at any point, anyway.  It's the Holy Spirit. 

[Tanaqui]

As far as a loss of freedom, there is concern that speech will be hindered, that churches will no longer be able to identify fornication as a sin, that parents will not be allowed to teach their children what they believe is the truth, that individuals will no longer be allowed to openly believe such a thing without facing penalties.

 

That concern is not realistic. We can't prevent parents from raising their children as lifelong members of the Klan, we're certainly not going to stop them from being told about their parents religious beliefs.

 

When Westboro Baptist gets shut down, then you might have a valid concern. Until then, our government operates on a principle that we can't have "free speech some of the time".

[Cammie]

Schools don't need to teach children that it is OK to be gay. They are learning that anyway. The younger generation overwhelmingly supports gay rights. When my son went to the prom with his boyfriend they had people coming up to them all night just to congratulate them and give them a hug. It was beautiful.

 

You are absolutely right...and maybe that is what people are afraid of!  Too bad because I am so thrilled that my DD has so many openly gay friends.  It means they feel comfortable with the school they all attend.  They feel comfortable in their own skin.  They feel comfortable in their peer group.  I LOVE the fact that there is no bashing and no hating at her school. I LOVE the fact that at this little school (in India) the Student Council specifically addressed same-sex couples when planning the high school dance.   I LOVE the fact that my DS watches Modern Family and therefore has always known that there are different types of families...and that they are all ok.  I LOVE the fact that when we watch Amazing Race there are opening gay partners racing and that we all cheer for them!  I love the fact that my kids understand that who they are and who their friends are is ALL OK!  It is all part of the spectrum of the human experience.

[Mrs Mungo]

Wow. I have 4 little kids running/crawling around right now - and I only had time to skim through the first page... It seems (maybe others have weighed in since) that this 'conversation' is very one-sided. A lot of anti-Christian, former-Christian, loosely-Christian input...

I think it is really rude to barge into such a long conversation only having skimmed the first page. I don't think you know the context of what has been said, the arguments made or the tone of the discussion. If you don't have time for the conversation, then you don't have time for the conversation. Shouting your two cents into a long, mostly respectful discussion is not respectful of the time and effort other people have made. Don't you think you should first seek to understand what others have said and listen to *them* before interjecting your opinion into a long conversation?

 

It's also rude to speak for other people and label them "loosely Christian." I am a Christian. I might have different beliefs than you about the political arena, I might even have different beliefs regarding how the church views some matters, but that doesn't make me less Christian than you. You don't think my religion informs my beliefs? You don't think I've studied and put thought into them? Do you *not* believe in John 3:16? I think any Christian presuming to label another as non-Christian or only "loosely" Christian has a pretty large beam in their eye to worry about.

 

 

 

1) We believe it's a bad thing for our country - the breakdown of the traditional family has huge implications for our society. Okay, I know I'm getting attacked for that one, but it is what I firmly believe. I don't hate homosexuals or divorcees or adulterers or any sinners. I'm a sinner, too.

Worse than fornicating? Gossip? Divorce? Remarriage? Adultery? If not, then why is there a hyper-focus on homosexuality? Even *if* someone agrees that homosexuality is a sin, Christians are putting the cart before the horse to insist the secular society, non-religious people and people of other religions should follow your religion. We have the establishment clause for a reason. Separation of church and state was the expectation of our founding fathers. Here is a really good article on that from the Library of Congress:

http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danbury.html

 

 

2) Homosexuals are some of the most hateful, bigoted, militantly anti-Christian people in this country. I don't get why I am supposed to tolerate people who are intolerant themselves?

This is not my experience at all. One of my good friends from high school is gay. He lives in California and is married to a man. His dad is a pastor. He grew up in the church. He is still friends with loads of Christians. He votes Republican. I know several gay men and women serving (now openly) in the military. They aren't anti-American or anti-Christian or they wouldn't be able to live in that environment day to day.

 

Also...and this is hard for me to say. You are not supposed to be tolerant because other people are tolerant to you. As Christians we are supposed to do unto others and be kind, no matter what. It is the second greatest commandment, according to Christ himself.

 

 

Look at Chick Fil A. We're not voting one way because we don't like you, or we want to control your lives. We know what's coming next.

Do you understand why there was an issue with Chik Fil A? Dan Cathy was the CEO for Chick Fil A. He was an outspoken anti-gay political donator. It came out that the charitable organization run by Chick Fil A (not Dan Cathy, but the company itself) had donated millions of dollars to anti-gay political organizations that absolutely were seeking to tell gay people how to live their lives. People have the right to boycott or protest against organizations that they disagree with. Once again, it wasn't the CEO's *beliefs* that were the problem but the company's actions.

 

 

Has anyone mentioned yet... The mayor of Houston recently demanded the SERMONS of PASTORS who spoke out against homosexuality. In Canada, pastors are being JAILED for SPEAKING against homosexuality. (Once again, not angry here, just trying to be heard in what I feel is a largely one-sided conversation.) Why is it "hate speech" for me to say that homosexuality is sin against God, but "free speech" for gays to kiss at Chick-Fil-A?

You wouldn't know if it is one-sided because you admit that you haven't read it. Nobody here has claimed that saying that homosexuality is a sin is "hate speech." Both are examples of free speech, but it's a two way sword. People have the right to vehemently disagree with you. [eta: and I think if you want to discuss certain instances where you feel people's rights have been violated, then you need to provide proof that the instances actually exist. The onus is on you. I understand if you don't have time for it, but if that is the case, then you shouldn't bring it up, IMO.]

 

 

I think there is a lot of fear in the conservative Christian circles that giving more "freedom" and "power" to homosexuals means having our freedom taken from us.

I think you mean privilege, not freedom. Nobody is taking away the freedom of Christians to worship.

[Catwoman]

Unfortunately, I come across far more bigotry here than I ever have in my real life.

 

And I'm pretty sure there aren't too many liberal atheists in the FRC...

 

Well, I'm pretty sure the vast majority of any kind of people wouldn't exactly be lining up to support the FRC.

 

And I agree about most of the extreme views (on either side of any issue, really) being something I see online far more than I do in real life. I know people who would consider themselves to be religious, but many people online seem Super Religious to the point where even my religious friends are shaking their heads and wondering if they are for real. And the same thing goes for atheists. I have several atheist friends, but they don't make a big deal out of it and act like Super Atheists like I see some people doing online.

 

I suppose it's the kind of thing where most people are pretty nice and pretty tolerant and do their best to treat everyone fairly, but there are always a few who take everything to an extreme, no matter what their particular cause or agenda might be, and of course they are the ones we notice because they are the ones who keep shouting about things, while the majority of people are far less intense about them.

[hornblower]

Wow. I have 4 little kids running/crawling around right now - and I only had time to skim through the first page... It seems (maybe others have weighed in since) that this 'conversation' is very one-sided. A lot of anti-Christian, former-Christian, In Canada, pastors are being JAILED for SPEAKING against homosexuality. (Once again, not angry here, just trying to be heard in what I feel is a largely one-sided conversation.) Why is it "hate speech" for me to say that homosexuality is sin against God, but "free speech" for gays to kiss at Chick-Fil-A? 

 

Hiya - I'm Canadian & want to address this.

 

First of all, the entire story is false. I suspect you're referring to this case & it's been debunked several times. As in, it didn't happen. There was a human rights tribunal ruling against a pastor, but that was subsequently overturned. You can read about it here. 

 

Secondly, Canada is different from the USA because our Charter of Rights & Freedoms has some unique clauses. It is from s. 15 of the Charter that we have sexual equality, & the courts have ruled that to include sexual orientation. You can read about it here

 

Canada ALSO has a prohibition on hate speech - unlike the US where your right to speech trumps all. In Canada, it does not & the courts have ruled that it can be limited. Holocaust denial is a crime here & so for ex. in one of our more notorious cases, someone was convicted &  sentenced to 5 years in prison for it.

 

You can read about hate speech laws in Canada here

 

I haven't seen anything to say that you cannot continue to speak your opinions in the US.  From what I can see, Americans can spout  racist, homophobic, misogynist diatribes at will because of your constitutional protection.

 

As society changes, some of those people will be increasingly marginalized. The culture is changing - just like culture changed to consider women voting, women working, women earning more money than men, women in leadership roles etc. All these things are explained as sins by some factions of some faiths. They're free to have those opinions. They're not free to force the enactment of those beliefs on others.

 

I hope you'll take the time to read this entire thread - because by leaping in at the end you've missed lots of excellent discussion & information - & the links I've provided to get a clearer understanding of this issue.

[LucyStoner]

On a Venn diagram there is considerable overlap between homosexuals and Christians. It is inaccurate to act like gays are in one group and Christians in another. I think a big part of religious freedom is respecting everyone's right to their faith.

[lionfamily1999]

I'm not sure the "That could never happen here" reasoning flies in the US anymore.  A lot of things that "could never happen here" have happened here, and so what is "realistic" is a lot more open ended than it used to be.

 

Making it illegal, a hate crime, to speak against certain behaviors would hinder a parents ability to teach their children that.  Even if they were still allowed to teach their children that, it would come with the concern that either themselves or children would be found guilty of a hate crime later for speaking about their beliefs.

[bettyandbob]

Thank you Mrs. Mungo for responding in a logical composed manner.

Edited December 9, 2014 by Susan Wise Bauer
Removed rhetoric...respond, don't react.

[Tanaqui]

Making it illegal, a hate crime, to speak against certain behaviors would hinder a parents ability to teach their children that.

 

Sure. But that hasn't happened. When it does happen, we can talk about it. At the moment, nobody has ever so much as floated the idea of making a law against preaching against homosexuality, and anything even remotely similar comes wrapped in verbiage about how it doesn't apply to religious institutions or to parents, blah blah blah.

 

The US in particular has some of the loosest free speech laws in the world. Unlike, say, Germany you can't even get written up for teaching your kids blatantly dishonest things like "the Holocaust didn't happen". If the situation changes such that such a law is possible in the US, I think we can rest assured that at that point, restrictions on free speech will be the very least of our problems.

 

[Btervet]

I'm not sure the "That could never happen here" reasoning flies in the US anymore. A lot of things that "could never happen here" have happened here, and so what is "realistic" is a lot more open ended than it used to be.

 

Making it illegal, a hate crime, to speak against certain behaviors would hinder a parents ability to teach their children that. Even if they were still allowed to teach their children that, it would come with the concern that either themselves or children would be found guilty of a hate crime later for speaking about their beliefs.

I don't believe anyone has ever claimed that hateful speech is a hate crime, but I could be wrong. If so, I'd love an example. Hate speech is perfectly legal. Crimes, when motivated by hate, can be additionally prosecuted as hate crimes. However, that does not imply that hate itself is a crime, and I have never heard someone suggest it should be, but again, if someone has, I'd love an example.

 

As for you pastors fear, where does that come from? Of course ALL pastors won't have to preform gay marriages. There is no reason to think that would be legally required ever, and no gay rights group in this country is advocating for that.

 

Using unfounded fears like these to justify limiting the freedoms and rights of gay couples baffles me. It seems to me the same as say "well, I'm afraid some Christians might burn me at the stake, so we'd better outlaw Christians, and stakes, and probably fire too."

[Slartibartfast]

Wow. I have 4 little kids running/crawling around right now - and I only had time to skim through the first page... It seems (maybe others have weighed in since) that this 'conversation' is very one-sided. A lot of anti-Christian, former-Christian, loosely-Christian input...

"Loosely-Christian?" Are you demeaning other people's personal relationship with Christ?

[Cindy in FL.]

 

Mrs. Mungo is nothing if not cool under pressure. She seems to always keep it together!

 

Thank you Mrs. Mungo for responding in a logical composed manner, while I'm still staring open mouth at the screen wondering how that post was even made (she just wrote what?!)

[Slartibartfast]

Well, I'm pretty sure the vast majority of any kind of people wouldn't exactly be lining up to support the FRC.

The topic was about the FRC but the HSLDA does many of the same things.

[LucyStoner]

I'm not sure the "That could never happen here" reasoning flies in the US anymore. A lot of things that "could never happen here" have happened here, and so what is "realistic" is a lot more open ended than it used to be.

 

Making it illegal, a hate crime, to speak against certain behaviors would hinder a parents ability to teach their children that. Even if they were still allowed to teach their children that, it would come with the concern that either themselves or children would be found guilty of a hate crime later for speaking about their beliefs.

Hate crimes in the US are generally violent crimes motivated by hate. I don't tend to agree with hate crime legislation (I think killing someone is hateful by definition) but we do not criminalize speech here except in limited instances (online threats of violence being up before the SCOTUS) and in some instances bullying and stalking which threatens people's safety. "I think gay people are sinning" is not the same as texting a gay kid that they are going to die for being so sinful or writing that message on their car.

[Vera]

Thank you Mrs. Mungo for responding in a logical composed manner, while I'm still staring open mouth at the screen wondering how that post was even made (she just wrote what?!)

Me too.

[Pam in CT]

re: boycotts

There is a difference in an individual choosing not to patronize a business and an individual not being allowed in a business. Do you really think gay people should have to resort to Green Books? Besides that, as it has been repeatedly explained, the "free market" is a utopian ideal with no basis in reality.

Gracious no.

 

I absolutely believe, personally, that public accommodation laws are necessary.  I do not believe that consumer boycotts or twitter-shaming or other consumer-driven actions are adequate to ensure civil rights.  In one of the other threads I linked the Green Book myself to illustrate what happened, here, not so long ago when such things were left up to the market.

 

 

However, on this very thread, a number of posters who are uncomfortable with same-sex-marriage have expressed the view that if a particular business -- say, a baker -- is unwilling to make -- say, a wedding cake -- for a same sex couple, the couple and other SSM supporters should simply take their business elsewhere.

 

(I do not, personally, agree with this view, FWIW.  I think it is rooted in an insufficient understanding of our civil rights history, and an unrealistically utopian view of markets.  I think our history clearly demonstrates that we do need public accommodation laws.  Nonetheless, I do not think this view is necessarily rooted in ill will.)

 

 

 

The irony I saw in momof3's Chick Fil A's example was... that's what happened.  Advocates of SSM were troubled by a company's practices, and they organized a boycott (also known as: taking their business elsewhere).  This is precisely what opponents to SSM upthread were advocating that SSM advocates do.

 

 

 

And yet she understood that boycott thusly:

 

 

2) Homosexuals are some of the most hateful, bigoted, militantly anti-Christian people in this country. I don't get why I am supposed to tolerate people who are intolerant themselves? Look at Chick Fil A. We're not voting one way because we don't like you, or we want to control your lives. We know what's coming next.

 

 

...Why is it "hate speech" for me to say that homosexuality is sin against God, but "free speech" for gays to kiss at Chick-Fil-A? 

 

I think there is a lot of fear in the conservative Christian circles that giving more "freedom" and "power" to homosexuals means having our freedom taken from us.

 

 

Clearly there is a lot of fear.  I truly don't understand what exactly is being feared.  I truly don't see what freedom is taken away, when others are given access to the same rights as everyone else.

 

But that the fear is there, and that it is real, is clear.

[zoobie]

I'm not sure the "That could never happen here" reasoning flies in the US anymore. A lot of things that "could never happen here" have happened here, and so what is "realistic" is a lot more open ended than it used to be.

 

Making it illegal, a hate crime, to speak against certain behaviors would hinder a parents ability to teach their children that. Even if they were still allowed to teach their children that, it would come with the concern that either themselves or children would be found guilty of a hate crime later for speaking about their beliefs.

Who is talking about making speech illegal?

 

A hate crime is a crime committed against an individual because of his status (race, sex, national origin, sexual orientation, etc.). There must be an underlying CRIME.

 

It's not illegal to say awful things as a business owner. The bigoted baker can say whatever he wants.

[Vera]

I'm not sure the "That could never happen here" reasoning flies in the US anymore. A lot of things that "could never happen here" have happened here, and so what is "realistic" is a lot more open ended than it used to be.

 

Making it illegal, a hate crime, to speak against certain behaviors would hinder a parents ability to teach their children that. Even if they were still allowed to teach their children that, it would come with the concern that either themselves or children would be found guilty of a hate crime later for speaking about their beliefs.

This is nonsense. If anything like that was even proposed, even I would be out picketing for your right to keep spouting your beliefs.

[FaithManor]

Amen, and amen, and amen Mrs. Mungo!