Why Are Atheists So Obsessed With Christians?

[KnightofChrist]

You can construct strawmen like this all you want but it doesn't change the actual position of an atheist.

No strawmen have been constructed.
 

Unless you want to invoke the special pleading logical fallicy then you must realise the atheist position towards god/s is the same as our position towards unicorns, big foot, lochness etc

Yeah, sure we have heard some people say that they believe in such things, most of us realise that we cannot disprove any of these things, most of us have seen no evidence to suggest there is any truth in the existence of such things thus we remain unconvinced.

We don't then go about making it our life's goal to find a unicorn, or a big foot or lochness monster or a god. Instead we go about our lives as usual. If some new information comes to light then some of us are interested enough to read it and assess it.

Again, if someone had never heard of unicorns, big foot, etc they would indeed lack a belief for or against those things. But if they had then they would have to form a thought, an opinion, a belief to believe that either they did exist, probably did not exist, absolutely did not exist, or there is no way to know if they exist.
 

But lack of belief is very different to belief. The vast majority of atheists don't hold onto a belief that there are no gods. Mostly we don't like the idea of believing in something that there is no evidence for.

Belief in something is very different than belief against something, but belief can be correctly applied to both means of thinking. An opinion is a belief, if one believes there is likely no God because there is no evidence to support His existence, that is a position, that is a thought, that is an opinion, that is a belief. Edited August 7, 2013 by KnightofChrist

[stevil]

I've wondered about this too.

 

I think there are different reasons why atheists might talk about Christianity. Some might be:

- exploring it and asking questions

- wanting to 'disprove' our reasons to believe in God

 

I'm a convert, and I remember being rather anti-Catholic before, and then asking questions.

I think a lot of atheists see religious groups as a threat.

When we see religious groups want laws against abortion or against gay marriage or want to outlaw contraceptives or redefine science so that unvarified supernatural beliefs can be taught as science, when religious groups seek to stop gay people from adopting children or from having teachers jobs, then us atheists pay an interest in the religious.

 

We obviously want a society where we can life free from religious influence, where we can make our life choices and not be locked up or driven underground. We want discrimination to stop. So we start paying attention to the religious folk, we try to get to know them, learn how they think so that we can hopefully come to some sort of compromise, if this is not possible then we seek to oppose them, maybe by discrediting their religious beliefs in the hope that society becomes more secular, more accepting and less judgemental.

We live very much in a diverse society these days with people from different cultures, beliefs, sexual orientations. An inclusive society is necessary for harmony, any threats to that must be dealt with.
 

[KnightofChrist]

I think a lot of atheists see religious groups as a threat.
When we see religious groups want laws against abortion...

So you come here to save the world from people who want to save babies lives?

[stevil]

Again, if someone had never heard of unicorns, big foot, etc they would indeed lack a belief for or against those things. But if they had then they would have to form a thought, an opinion, a belief to believe that either they did exist, probably did not exist, absolutely did not exist, or there is no way to know if they exist.

An opinion could be an open one rather than a closed one.

An open opinion could be that the idea (of unicorns, of god) seems somewhat interesting, but could be put on the back burner in lieu of there being no evidence.

This is different to having a belief that this thing doesn't exist.

 

[KnightofChrist]

An opinion could be an open one rather than a closed one.
An open opinion could be that the idea (of unicorns, of god) seems somewhat interesting, but could be put on the back burner in lieu of there being no evidence.
This is different to having a belief that this thing doesn't exist.

Well maybe in the special Atheist dictionary, but in the real world an opinion can be a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty. And to believe or have a belief can mean to hold an opinion.

Edited August 7, 2013 by KnightofChrist

[stevil]

Well maybe in the special Atheist dictionary, but in the real world an opinion can be a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty. And to believe or have a belief can mean to hold an opinion.

 

There is a difference between a belief and an opinion.

If a person says "I believe in god" this is different to a person saying "I have an opinion on god's existence"

 

I certainly think it would be preferable for a person to say "in my opinion god probably exists" rather than a person saying "I believe in god" because if they realise it is merely an opinion then hopefully they won't be so driven to force others to follow their own opinion based beliefs.
 

[stevil]

So you come here to save the world from people who want to save babies lives?

 

In my own little way I would like to oppose Catholics and their drive to force people to keep unborn babies alive.

I would never support a government forcing a mother to keep her fetus, primarily because it is not my business and hence it is not the government's business.

I do understand why Catholics are passionate about this issue though, and I respect that.
 

[KnightofChrist]

There is a difference between a belief and an opinion.

If a person says "I believe in god" this is different to a person saying "I have an opinion on god's existence"

 

I certainly think it would be preferable for a person to say "in my opinion god probably exists" rather than a person saying "I believe in god" because if they realise it is merely an opinion then hopefully they won't be so driven to force others to follow their own opinion based beliefs.
 

 

I know you have the belief that belief and opinion are different.

[MarysLittleFlower]

I think a lot of atheists see religious groups as a threat.

When we see religious groups want laws against abortion or against gay marriage or want to outlaw contraceptives or redefine science so that unvarified supernatural beliefs can be taught as science, when religious groups seek to stop gay people from adopting children or from having teachers jobs, then us atheists pay an interest in the religious.

 

We obviously want a society where we can life free from religious influence, where we can make our life choices and not be locked up or driven underground. We want discrimination to stop. So we start paying attention to the religious folk, we try to get to know them, learn how they think so that we can hopefully come to some sort of compromise, if this is not possible then we seek to oppose them, maybe by discrediting their religious beliefs in the hope that society becomes more secular, more accepting and less judgemental.

We live very much in a diverse society these days with people from different cultures, beliefs, sexual orientations. An inclusive society is necessary for harmony, any threats to that must be dealt with.
 

Thanks for the response. Regarding some of what you said - pro life issue or pro marriage arguments are not only held by Christians, they also appeal to natural law. (natural law and reason don't contradict public revelation, though our faith comes from public revelation and is a gift from God). Contraceptives have health problems with them too. I remember there was a time when Pope Benedict talked against condoms in Africa, and was attacked. However, then a professor from Harvard, who is not Catholic I think, did some research and agreed with Pope Benedict: he said that the countries in Africa with the lowest numbers of people with AIDS, etc, are those that promote abstinence and have a strong moral and religious view. He talked about condoms giving people a false sense of security. I think sometimes people react to Church teachings because of our culture has taught us, and because of biases our culture has instilled into us. I've found that a lot of what the media says like that, is rhetoric. Call something "tolerance" or "freedom", and people immediately begin associating the ideas with it.

 

As Catholics, of course, we don't believe that the state has the ultimate say of what moral truth is. That's why we are supporting certain laws and not supporting others. It's not about "controlling" people, it's about making it easier for them to follow what we see as being the ultimate truth: for example if abortion is legalized, it's been proven that more get abortions. I also think there needs to be help given to pregnant women who might not be able to support the baby, etc, - so they don't feel pressured into back-alley abortions. Personally, I'm pro life because of my faith, but also I see it supported by science and evidence, and it all comes together with me, in fact as a Catholic, faith and reason aren't opposed.. if I see something in science or history that supports my faith, i'm not really surprised.

 

I'm not sure what you mean about redefining science though. When the Vatican asks scientists to examine various miracles, the scientists are very scrupulous with it all and don't look for a specific answer, that's why canonization is such a big process, so much research goes into it, to rule out any other possible case. Every other possible explanation is looked for until it's just not supportable by the evidence. To me, this is much more reliable than people explaining absolutely everything about us (like love, psychology, etc) with evolution, when actually we can't even prove that such things are genetic or evolved. My undergrad is in science so I studied it from their own perspective.

 

You mentioned a secular society being less judgemental. But there's a difference between judging people and ideas. I can love a homosexual person while disagreeing with them. Do you have family members that you disagree with on stuff? :) you still love them as people, right? I know secular people would say - how can you love them and deny them the "right to get married" - but we don't think it's loving to help someone sin. I know then you'll disagree that it's a sin. And so we go around in circles. I'd invite you to read this article that deals with natural law and it could help to understand what we're getting at.. it's by a philosophy professor: http://www.peterkreeft.com/audio/11_moral-theology/square_three-sides.htm

 

Ultimately, freedom is about being free to make the right choices. If a person jumps off a bridge, sure they chose this freely, and God did give us a free will... and they did something to harm themselves. We have a free will so we can love, not so that we can harm ourselves, and I know atheists usually don't believe in a soul, but by considering that Catholics do believe this, you can see why we'd want to protect the soul :)

Edited August 7, 2013 by MarysLittleFlower

[Winchester]

In my own little way I would like to oppose Catholics and their drive to force people to keep unborn babies alive.

I would never support a government forcing a mother to keep her fetus, primarily because it is not my business and hence it is not the government's business.

I do understand why Catholics are passionate about this issue though, and I respect that.
 

Do you believe child neglect should be a crime?

[Socrates]

You can construct strawmen like this all you want but it doesn't change the actual position of an atheist.

Unless you want to invoke the special pleading logical fallicy then you must realise the atheist position towards god/s is the same as our position towards unicorns, big foot, lochness etc

Yeah, sure we have heard some people say that they believe in such things, most of us realise that we cannot disprove any of these things, most of us have seen no evidence to suggest there is any truth in the existence of such things thus we remain unconvinced.

We don't then go about making it our life's goal to find a unicorn, or a big foot or lochness monster or a god. Instead we go about our lives as usual. If some new information comes to light then some of us are interested enough to read it and assess it.

But lack of belief is very different to belief. The vast majority of atheists don't hold onto a belief that there are no gods. Mostly we don't like the idea of believing in something that there is no evidence for.
 

 

I wouldn't put the ultimate eternal immaterial Source of Being in the same category as unicorns or bigfoot, but that's a whole other topic.

 

This gets back to the original topic.  I myself don't believe in alien abductions or bigfoot, yet I feel no compulsion to spend hours of my life day after day after day going on websites or message boards devoted to such things,and attacking or denigrating belief in them.

 

If there is no God, as atheists claim, it seems to me a huge waste to devote so much of one's time and energy to hatred of an imaginary being.

 

Of course, atheists are free to do what they want, just seems a bit bizarre and obsessive.

[Socrates]

In my own little way I would like to oppose Catholics and their drive to force people to keep unborn babies alive.

I would never support a government forcing a mother to keep her fetus, primarily because it is not my business and hence it is not the government's business.

I do understand why Catholics are passionate about this issue though, and I respect that.
 

 

It's not your business nor the government's business whether or not I kill my toddler or my grandmother - or anyone else I might decide shouldn't live.  If protection of human life isn't the government's business, let's cut the hypocrisy and be consistent and fight to strike down all laws against murder.

 

But, if I recall, you also think the government should have the power to forcibly take away everyone's guns (and perhaps ban all alcohol as well), so you playing the libertarian card here comes across as rather unconvincing and hypocritical.

 

And do you really think your incoherent posts here have done anything to make Catholics abandon their pro-life stance?

[stevil]

Thanks for the response. Regarding some of what you said - pro life issue or pro marriage arguments are not only held by Christians, they also appeal to natural law. (natural law and reason don't contradict public revelation, though our faith comes from public revelation and is a gift from God).

I suppose our understanding of natural law is different. I would assume that the Catholic church have their own position on what natural law means.
I am not too well researched on it, but have read an interesting article and it helped me realise that I am amoral. The gist of what I read was that there are certain things that people will act violently over, certain things that even a third party bystander will act violently over e.g. an attacker attacks a pregnant woman. A bystander may feel compelled to intervene and put themselves at risk to help the woman. So regardless of any laws a person might be compelled to act out on something.
Also there are things that people will act violently towards their own government on, as is the case in Egypt right now. So essentially it isn't the government whom have total control over the rules of society but instead each member of society has influence on the rules of the society.
My own conclusion to this is that people understand the value of survival and freedom, understand that they need to band together against oppression and abuse, that they want a society which provides mutual benefit thus want some restrictive laws e.g. against murder, rape, theft etc.
What I personally don't like and don't want is a society based on morality. The reason why is that I don't see that there are any moral truths, not being a Catholic I disagree with many of the Catholic morals, not being a Christian I disagree with many of the Christian morals, same thing goes for all the other religions. When a person claims that something is immoral, all I see is a subjective opinion being claimed. So if something doesn't impact that person, let's say that their neighbors are gay and having intimate relations in the privacy of their home then I don't see how this "sin" is any of the other people's business. It certainly has no impact on the neighbors of the gay couple.
So if it has no impact then why not leave them be?

You mentioned a secular society being less judgemental. But there's a difference between judging people and ideas. I can love a homosexual person while disagreeing with them. Do you have family members that you disagree with on stuff? :) you still love them as people, right? I know secular people would say - how can you love them and deny them the "right to get married" - but we don't think it's loving to help someone sin. I know then you'll disagree that it's a sin.

In the case of the gay couple. Let's just say that they aren't Christians, that they don't think that there is anything damaging by them expressing their love for each other in a physically intimate way.
Given this, they are certainly not going to thank a "well meaning" Catholic for stopping them "sinning", actually they are going to view it as if their Catholic neighbors are interferring and oppressing them when it is none of the Catholic's business.
This will certainly lead to conflict. They gays will hate the Catholics for trying to stop them living and loving.
My own thought is that if god exists, if sin exists then that is a matter between the god and the sinner. It is not the place of the neighbor to judge or to interfere, even if in your own mind you are trying to "save" your neigbor from themselves.
From my perspective, gay sex is not for me. I'm not wired that way, I don't have a curiosity for it but I certainly respect other consenting adults that are wired that way or simply want to do it or give it a try. It is not my place to tell people what they can do, what they can eat, what TV shows they should watch, what occupations they should do, who they can have a relationship with. It is just not my place to try and control other people.
Of course I will get involved if the actions of others endanger me, then it does become my business. But otherwise I am not concerned if people are behaving immorally or sinfully.

It's not about "controlling" people, it's about making it easier for them to follow what we see as being the ultimate truth

But this is the problem. What you see as "we" does not reflect or respect the other person's viewpoint. They don't agree with your understanding of "ultimate truth" therefore they see you as controlling them, forcing them via law to conform to your beliefs in "ultimate truth".
They don't want your guidance or help on this matter, they especially don't want to be forced down this path via law, they see it as unnecessary oppression, they see you as a threat to their liberties, to their own happiness.
You can't force people to be Catholic or to agree with Catholic morality.
Would the best way forward be for you to try and educate people rather than use law to control them?

I'm not sure what you mean about redefining science though.

This wasn't a grumble about Catholics, just a grumble about the many fights that are had in the bible belt of USA where groups are fighting on school boards or in courts in order to teach creationism in science class.

[KnightofChrist]

There is a difference between a belief and an opinion.
If a person says "I believe in god" this is different to a person saying "I have an opinion on god's existence"
I certainly think it would be preferable for a person to say "in my opinion god probably exists" rather than a person saying "I believe in god" because if they realise it is merely an opinion then hopefully they won't be so driven to force others to follow their own opinion based beliefs.

There can be a difference between belief and opinion; but the two terms can have the same meaning. The word belief can be used to describe adopting ways of thinking without it being a matter of faith. One can for example hold the belief that man made global warming is true, or one can hold the belief it is not true.

In my own little way I would like to oppose Catholics and their drive to force people to keep unborn babies alive.
I would never support a government forcing a mother to keep her fetus, primarily because it is not my business and hence it is not the government's business.
I do understand why Catholics are passionate about this issue though, and I respect that.

I don't see how saving the human race from people trying to save the human race is very logical. That the government or society has no place to say what a slave master can do with their slaves/property is rather primitive. And that is in effect what you are arguing: it’s just a recycled and repackaged logic that has been used to oppress and abuse one group of persons another group does not honor as persons. Do you believe there are any other groups of human beings that are not persons? Or is your bigotry limited only to persons not yet born?

[stevil]

One can for example hold the belief that man made global warming is true, or one can hold the belief it is not true.

A third option would be to hold the position that one does not know if man made global warming is true or not.
This would be a lack of belief in either of the two options as opposed to a belief either way.
Most atheists are in this lack of belief position with regards to gods.

I don't see how saving the human race from people trying to save the human race is very logical.

Some women chosing to terminate their own pregnancies will not result in the destruction of the human race. It won't even make a society unstable. Most people won't feel threatened by this. For example it is too late to abort me, I'm already born, so personally I am not worried about being aborted.

That the government or society has no place to say what a slave master can do with their slaves/property is rather primitive.

It depends on what you think the purpose of government is.
I don't think human life is sacred. I don't think it is the place of government to uphold the sacredness of human life. Certainly that is not what I want a government for.
I want a society that is reasonably safe for me and for my loved ones and allows us to live as we choose as long as we don't endanger the stability of society. I see government as the glue that holds society together, safe, functional and content. I have no interest in a goverment that forces a moral standard onto members of society. I have no problem in people choosing to belong to organisations that promote a moral standard, such as religious groups or humanist groups or Bhudism etc. But I see this function as seperate from government regulation, I see morality as a voluntary opt in thing rather than an enforced thing.

Do you believe there are any other groups of human beings that are not persons? Or is your bigotry limited only to persons not yet born?

I have no bigotry of persons not yet born. I have no ill feelings towards them. I regocnise them fully as persons but I also recognise that there is no danger to society nor to myself in allowing mothers to chose to terminate their own pregnancies. I will not interfere, I will not give my government the power to interfere. The choice to terminate or not is the choice of the mother, her choice has no impact on me.

[havok579257]

A third option would be to hold the position that one does not know if man made global warming is true or not.
This would be a lack of belief in either of the two options as opposed to a belief either way.
Most atheists are in this lack of belief position with regards to gods.
Some women chosing to terminate their own pregnancies will not result in the destruction of the human race. It won't even make a society unstable. Most people won't feel threatened by this. For example it is too late to abort me, I'm already born, so personally I am not worried about being aborted.
It depends on what you think the purpose of government is.
I don't think human life is sacred. I don't think it is the place of government to uphold the sacredness of human life. Certainly that is not what I want a government for.
I want a society that is reasonably safe for me and for my loved ones and allows us to live as we choose as long as we don't endanger the stability of society. I see government as the glue that holds society together, safe, functional and content. I have no interest in a goverment that forces a moral standard onto members of society. I have no problem in people choosing to belong to organisations that promote a moral standard, such as religious groups or humanist groups or Bhudism etc. But I see this function as seperate from government regulation, I see morality as a voluntary opt in thing rather than an enforced thing.
I have no bigotry of persons not yet born. I have no ill feelings towards them. I regocnise them fully as persons but I also recognise that there is no danger to society nor to myself in allowing mothers to chose to terminate their own pregnancies. I will not interfere, I will not give my government the power to interfere. The choice to terminate or not is the choice of the mother, her choice has no impact on me.

 

 

Are you also ok with mothers wanting to murder their children until say the age of 5?  It won't harm society.  Its no different than abortion pre birth.  As you say the government should have no say what women do with their children.  So are you ok with after birth murder just as you are ok with pre birth murder?  If not your very hypocritical.

 

Also there is no harm to society or to you if we allow parents to murder their post birth children who are disabled or have a low IQ or even better have dark skin such as black people.  Parents murdering their black children has no effect of society, it will not cause society to die out, it will not even hamper society as all parents will not murder their black children.  Are you ok with this?  If not your hypocritical again.

Edited August 8, 2013 by havok579257

[havok579257]

I suppose our understanding of natural law is different. I would assume that the Catholic church have their own position on what natural law means.
I am not too well researched on it, but have read an interesting article and it helped me realise that I am amoral. The gist of what I read was that there are certain things that people will act violently over, certain things that even a third party bystander will act violently over e.g. an attacker attacks a pregnant woman. A bystander may feel compelled to intervene and put themselves at risk to help the woman. So regardless of any laws a person might be compelled to act out on something.
Also there are things that people will act violently towards their own government on, as is the case in Egypt right now. So essentially it isn't the government whom have total control over the rules of society but instead each member of society has influence on the rules of the society.
My own conclusion to this is that people understand the value of survival and freedom, understand that they need to band together against oppression and abuse, that they want a society which provides mutual benefit thus want some restrictive laws e.g. against murder, rape, theft etc.
What I personally don't like and don't want is a society based on morality. The reason why is that I don't see that there are any moral truths, not being a Catholic I disagree with many of the Catholic morals, not being a Christian I disagree with many of the Christian morals, same thing goes for all the other religions. When a person claims that something is immoral, all I see is a subjective opinion being claimed. So if something doesn't impact that person, let's say that their neighbors are gay and having intimate relations in the privacy of their home then I don't see how this "sin" is any of the other people's business. It certainly has no impact on the neighbors of the gay couple.
So if it has no impact then why not leave them be?
In the case of the gay couple. Let's just say that they aren't Christians, that they don't think that there is anything damaging by them expressing their love for each other in a physically intimate way.
Given this, they are certainly not going to thank a "well meaning" Catholic for stopping them "sinning", actually they are going to view it as if their Catholic neighbors are interferring and oppressing them when it is none of the Catholic's business.
This will certainly lead to conflict. They gays will hate the Catholics for trying to stop them living and loving.
My own thought is that if god exists, if sin exists then that is a matter between the god and the sinner. It is not the place of the neighbor to judge or to interfere, even if in your own mind you are trying to "save" your neigbor from themselves.
From my perspective, gay sex is not for me. I'm not wired that way, I don't have a curiosity for it but I certainly respect other consenting adults that are wired that way or simply want to do it or give it a try. It is not my place to tell people what they can do, what they can eat, what TV shows they should watch, what occupations they should do, who they can have a relationship with. It is just not my place to try and control other people.
Of course I will get involved if the actions of others endanger me, then it does become my business. But otherwise I am not concerned if people are behaving immorally or sinfully.
But this is the problem. What you see as "we" does not reflect or respect the other person's viewpoint. They don't agree with your understanding of "ultimate truth" therefore they see you as controlling them, forcing them via law to conform to your beliefs in "ultimate truth".
They don't want your guidance or help on this matter, they especially don't want to be forced down this path via law, they see it as unnecessary oppression, they see you as a threat to their liberties, to their own happiness.
You can't force people to be Catholic or to agree with Catholic morality.
Would the best way forward be for you to try and educate people rather than use law to control them?
This wasn't a grumble about Catholics, just a grumble about the many fights that are had in the bible belt of USA where groups are fighting on school boards or in courts in order to teach creationism in science class.

 

 

the gay couple will hate the catholics even if catholic do nothing to stop gay marriage and gay adoption.  They will hate us simply because not only do we not approve of their life style but we don't celebrate it like they expect everyone to.  Gay couple not only want you to be ok with their life styles but they also want you to be supportive and eagerly excited for their lifestyles.  If your not, then you a bigot.  No matter what catholics do or don't do, gay couple will hate us because we do not approve of their life style. 

 

You also are not required to respect the persons point of view if their point of view is skewed or wrong.  If someone wants to have sex with little boys we should not respect this persons point of view.  If someone says he wants all catholics killed we should not respect this point of view.  If someone uses abortion as a way to have sex without consequenses we do not have to respect their point of view. 

 

I understand if your world, if it doesn't effect you, your loved ones or society as a whole you are ok with it.  I am sure you are ok with a limited number of men having sex with boys because in the grand scheme of things it doesn't effect you or your loved ones and it won't effect society as a whole.  According to your logic, you respect these peoples points of views and are ok with men having sex with little boys.

[Vincent Vega]

 

The funniest thing I saw was one of the catholics saying "well child molestation isn't as bad in the catholic church as it is in public". That is soooo shameful.

I was the one who pointed that out (and you'll note that I'm not a member of the Church of Rome). It's really not shameful, because I wasn't excusing those people who elected to abuse children, but rather attempting to point out that you come off as having based your opinions on emotion when you say things like "your child-molesting church", but not "your child-molesting public school system". 

[stevil]

Are you also ok with mothers wanting to murder their children until say the age of 5?  It won't harm society.  Its no different than abortion pre birth.  As you say the government should have no say what women do with their children.  So are you ok with after birth murder just as you are ok with pre birth murder?  If not your very hypocritical.
 
Also there is no harm to society or to you if we allow parents to murder their post birth children who are disabled or have a low IQ or even better have dark skin such as black people.  Parents murdering their black children has no effect of society, it will not cause society to die out, it will not even hamper society as all parents will not murder their black children.  Are you ok with this?  If not your hypocritical again.

I think there is much merit in considering post birth infanticide.
When my wife was pregnant we had a scan performed. One of the things they check for is down syndrom. The scan isn't perfect but they give you a percentage risk. I would hate the thought of terminating a pregnancy only to find out that the fetus was fine.

So for "evil" people like myself whom might terminate a Downs fetus we might benefit from allowing the baby to be born first so that we can know 100% rather than have a 40% chance of killing a perfectly fine fetus.

But the danger in allowing the baby to be born is that other people see it and form an attachment. The father, the grand parents, the siblings, freinds of the family. So many people might get upset, it could cause people to get aggressive and to rebel against the parents choosing to kill a post born child.

But it seems people don't tend to get upset when a mother terminates her fetus. no-one attacks her violently. So it seems to me that society accepts abortions, thus we don't need government intervention.

[stevil]

the gay couple will hate the catholics even if catholic do nothing to stop gay marriage and gay adoption.  They will hate us simply because not only do we not approve of their life style but we don't celebrate it like they expect everyone to.  Gay couple not only want you to be ok with their life styles but they also want you to be supportive and eagerly excited for their lifestyles.  If your not, then you a bigot.  No matter what catholics do or don't do, gay couple will hate us because we do not approve of their life style.

I'm not sure what is meant by this?
They expect you to celebrate their marriage? Do you have gay friends that have invited you to their wedding?
Maybe if you said "No, I find you a cool person to hang with but I don't approve of gay marriage so I'm not going to celebrate with you", well maybe your friend will think that you are not really a friend, but maybe they will understand your religious convictions, I don't know.
 

You also are not required to respect the persons point of view if their point of view is skewed or wrong.  If someone wants to have sex with little boys we should not respect this persons point of view.

There is a big difference between having sex with consenting adults as opposed to having sex with little children.
There are many things children aren't deemed as capable of making full consent on. Children will believe almost anything. You could get a child to believe in Santa Claus, Ghosts, Christian god, Jewish god, Muslim god, Hindu gods, or whatever you want them to believe. You could probably con them into having sex IDK, never tried that one.
But sex can be quite serious given the posibility for disease or pregnancy. Unless the kid is fully educated on matters of sex and mature enough to understand consequences and make decent decisions.

But it is very different from trying to stop fully mature adults making their own decisions.