I don't know about you, but I'm getting tired of Christians being accused of being "hateful" because we want to defend traditional values and standards.
I have been "informed" that teaching one's congregation the verses from the bible and how homosexuality conflicts with God's commandments - is promoting hate.
I have been "informed" that when Churches teach us that God wants us to obey commandments and Satan wants us to sin as this will lead to misery - is also promoting hate.
I have been "informed" that when churches teach us that Christ and God taught us to love the sinner, not the sin. - is also promoting hate.
I have been "informed" that saying God does not love sin - is also promoting hate.
I have been "informed" that providing a way for people to repent and change - is also promoting hate.
I have been "informed" that if a church leader states: "We love gays and want to help them" -that is also promoting hate.
What exactly is their definition of "hate"?
Differences in beliefs are construed as hate.
The homosexual advocates seem to believe: "if all churches don't embrace and accept me as I am and change all of God's doctrine that relates with homosexuality then the churches are hateful." When truly there is no hate or promoting of hate for the homosexual person.
No one is forcing the homosexual to come to church, to join a particular religion, to believe, or to "repent".
However, the agenda of the homosexual advocates is to force the churches to accept their way, no matter the church's belief via laws from the Government.
This is well written article by Segelstein on what we are defending with the marriage amendment.
excerpts below from: http://www.onenewsnow.com/Perspectives/Default.aspx?id=323704
Why same-sex 'marriage' matters
by: Marcia Segelstein
..."Gay activists would have you believe that votes against gay "marriage" are a result of bigotry, the equivalent of racism or sexism. After all, they argue, what's wrong with two people loving each other and wanting to publicly proclaim it? Doesn't the world need more committed love, not less? ...
...But if and when same-sex "marriage" becomes law, it becomes against the law not to follow it. And that could indeed result in the government not only dictating doctrine to churches, but to religious schools, and to individuals. ...
...What's at issue here is government-enforced recognition that same-sex "marriage" is legally identical to traditional marriage, no matter the individuals' or institutions' religious beliefs.
Government intrusion on religion is what's at stake.
Despite what proponents of gay "marriage" argue, there are serious and wide-ranging implications for society by redefining something so fundamental. Already in Canada and Europe, pastors have been threatened with legal challenges as a result of teaching traditional Christian doctrine on marriage. And what about parents who want the right to be the ones teaching morality to their children? Will they have a legal leg to stand on when public schools teach that gay "marriage" is okay? Already, thanks to GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network), homosexuality is being introduced in schools at younger and younger ages. Just a few days ago, kindergarten students at a California school were given pledge cards produced by GLSEN and asked to sign them to support a "harassment-free school." Parents protested. But is there a day coming when such protests would bring charges of discrimination, punishable by law? ...
"Equality" laws in Great Britain recently forced a Christian adoption agency there out of business. Like a similar case in Massachusetts (where same-sex "marriage" is law), a Roman Catholic adoption agency in Wales can no longer continue its work of placing abandoned and abused children in homes. Why? Based on its Christian beliefs, St. David's Children sought out only homes with a mother and a father. As one British MP pointed out, there are plenty of other adoption agencies gay couples could have used. The government, because of innocuous-sounding "equality" laws, has essentially told the agency it can no longer base its work on its Roman Catholic tenets because they are, in effect, discriminatory. That is frightening. Exactly who are these laws supposed to be liberating, or for that matter, protecting?...
...Shortly after the California Supreme Court ruled that same-sex "marriage" is a constitutional right, and that sexual orientation is a protected class, it also ruled that a Christian doctor who refused to inseminate a lesbian couple should face legal consequences. My Roman Catholic obstetrician does not perform abortions, presumably for religious reasons. The state cannot force him to do so. It is his choice. But soon, given the fact that same-sex "marriage" has just been made legal in my home state of Connecticut, he may be forced to act against his religious beliefs when it comes to same-sex couples, or face legal consequences like the doctor in California. ...
...Will it someday be considered hate speech to publicly state what researchers have already determined: that children fare best when raised by their biological father and mother? ...
...What's at risk in this fight is not the civil rights of homosexuals. What's at risk is religious freedom for every American. That and the not-so-small problem of undermining what has been for centuries the very foundation of society."
A Letter to the Editor
6 years ago