The Gay agenda

[lastcallhall]

This is an article from Jim Daly on Foxnews and it looks like what a few of us conservative christians believe is the gay agenda moving forward to get marriage passed.

I am, naturally, personally opposed to the legalization of same-sex marriage for the simple but profound reason that it violates and contradicts the sacred text of the Bible, which I believe to be true and inspired. But on what basis should I expect people who dont believe as I do to likewise oppose same-sex marriage?

On the basis of logic, reason, common sense and the fact that preservation of traditional marriage is in the best interest of the common good, as evidenced by any number of factors, including reams of social science data and thousands of years of history.

Any discussion on the definition of marriage incites strong emotional reaction. And those of us within the orthodox Christian community understand that many in the culture see this issue very differently, and hold to very passionate views on the subject. We understand that on this matter, in some circles, that never the twain shall meet. Nevertheless, this difference of opinion does not preclude us the privilege of championing a principle we hold dear, especially since its our Christian faith that motivates us to support and defend what we believe to be Gods blueprint for human relationship. In the last half-century, progressives have exercised their own rights of cultural engagement, aggressively championing sweeping cultural changes on numerous levels. Although we may disagree with them, we certainly dont begrudge them the right to engage the process. But in this pursuit to redefine marriage, wouldnt it make sense to consider the outcomes of prior social reengineering efforts?

In the late 1960s, no-fault divorce promised to simplify, streamline and decrease the contentiousness surrounding marital breakup. Instead, it only encouraged struggling spouses to throw in the towel. Fathers abandoned their families in droves. Poverty levels skyrocketed. Prison populations increased at dramatic levels, a consequence of kids now growing up without a father in the home.

A few years later, in 1973, the Supreme Court legalized abortion in all 50 states. Supporters heralded a new era of responsibility, where every child would be a wanted child. Tragically, over 48 million babies have now been aborted and the beauty of life has been cheapened as a result, while child abuse has skyrocketed.

The expansion of welfare promised to alleviate human suffering. While in some ways noble in intent, it disincentivized work, undermined the family unit and created a perpetual cycle of dependency and poverty. Fathers were no longer needed to be an integral part of the family.

Cohabitation is yet another experiment which promised to liberate couples from the burden of marriage. The number of couples living together outside of marriage has increased ten-fold between 1960 and 2000. Over 12 million unmarried partners now live together in the United States. The result? Cohabitation not only decreases a persons appetite for marriage, it also increases the risk of divorce, should the couple ever tie the knot.

Further, a home with two unmarried partners has proven to be the most dangerous place for children in the U.S. Children who live with their mother and boyfriend are 11 times more likely to be sexually, physically, or emotionally abused than children living with their married biological parents.

In each example of social reengineering Ive noted, progressives promised good things. Sadly, the exact opposite has happened. However well-meaning the motivation, reengineering what God has designed is not only unwise, but radical and dangerous, too.

Without evidence of success to which to point, supporters of these ill-fated ventures are left with but one choice: If you cant change unfavorable outcomes, you change the minds of people as to what is considered favorable and good.

Here lies the last great frontier and the last gasp for those determined to re-engineer marriage. Those committed to this form of radicalism have systematically broken down the cultural barrier to same sex marriage by desensitizing people on the issue, stigmatizing those who oppose the movement and potentially criminalizing anyone who stands in opposition to them. The irony in our cultural discussion currently, is if you support traditional marriage, you are the one perceived by the cultural elite to be the radical.

Consider the case of a New Mexico couple who own and operate a photography business. When they kindly refused to shoot a lesbian marriage ceremony, they were summarily brought up on human rights violations by the New Mexico Human Rights Commission. They were fined for not accepting the job. While on the other hand, Christian organizations are now being singled out and suppliers are threatening to no longer supply them with critical support functions like computer technology because of their stand in opposition to same-sex marriage. Those in favor of same-sex marriage do not see the contradiction in these two examples. One group must perform the services and is fined for not doing so (in the name of human rights); the other is allowed to default on their contract because of alleged bigoted behavior on the part of the religious organization (with no regard for religious expression).

If religious liberty is lost in America, we will cease to be the nation our Founders intended us to be. Our rights will no longer be derived from God but from man, and therefore, dangerously beholden to political despots. I dont think Thomas Jefferson intended that to be the outcome for our great nation when he wrote the famous Danbury Baptist Church letter which mentioned the separation of church and state. Contrary to conventional wisdom, President Jefferson was expressing a concern that the church needed to be protected from the state, not the state from the church. It appears his fears are now being realized.

Jim Daly is president and host of "Focus on the Family."


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/05/ ... z1NJdkc5AN


The questions I have for debate are:

1. Is what happened to the New Mexico couple proof that gay marriage will threaten christians and the church from living our faith?

2. If gay marriage is legal in the entire US would churches be forced to recognize gay couples and be forced to hire gay people to positions even if that would be against our beliefs?

[Meow Mix]

Mark 10:7
Genesis 2:24
Eph 5:31

these verses say a man will be joined with his wife and become 1 flesh. This tells me you are joined to 1 person of the opposite sex.

Do you believe that a country with religious freedom should operate with your religious laws, or do you believe the country should be religiously neutral while protecting minority groups?

For instance, would you think something was amiss if a country claimed to be free, but due to having predominantly Muslims or Jews it outlawed the consumption of pork?

Which is the better example of a free country: the one where the religious majority enforces its religious rules on the populace, or the one in which the populace can engage in legal practices that may be taboo to the majority religion (so long as it isn't harming anyone)?

It seems to me that the country with true freedom is where even though the majority believes consuming pork is wrong, the minority that disagrees with this rule should still be able to consume pork because it isn't hurting anyone.

Your pedophile example doesn't apply because pedophilia harms the nonconsenting children.

So, which country do you think best resembles a truly free country with equality:
1) Predominantly Muslim/Jew country that bans pork for everybody

or

2) Predominantly Muslim/Jew country where non-Jews/non-Muslims are free to consume pork if they wish, since they aren't harming anyone other than the majority's taboo beliefs?

Can you see the analogy here to gay marriage? Do you want America to be a Christian theocracy, or do you want America to have freedom? You can't have both!

[Darias]

So I assume that you are all for not oppressing the people that feel polygamy and pedophilia should be legally protected. They are an even smaller minority that have called people like me closed minded and hateful are they wrong for not allowing them to be with "who they love."

Polygamy and pedophilia shouldn't even be in the same sentence.

One is a criminal offense which violates the rights of children and is not consensual.

The other is not legally recognized, but is between consenting adults.

While both may be equally "disgusting" in your eyes, subjective emotional reaction to such things do not determine the law.

Law is determined by fairness, equality, and protecting the rights of others.

I just want to make sure I have your point of view correct that a person in a group like NAMBLA that believes the laws should be changed to have the legal age of consent lowered to 12 is wrong. They claim to have doctors on their side that will back up that it is not damaging to a child 12 or older and that we are oppressing their rights and the natural feelings they have. You think they are wrong and the claims of oppression are incorrect or do not matter because 99.9% of people view the lifestyle as destructive.

Pedophilia is not an orientation, it is an acquired fetish. It is traditionally acceptable in many ancient cultures, including the Bible and the Qur'an -- where young girls are married off to older men.

In modern society, pedophilia is illegal , not just because it offends our sensibilities, but because it violates the rights of children, and it is not consensual.

There is absolutely no credible evidence that shows that 12 year old's possess the ability to give their consent. Children aren't capable of defending themselves against unwanted advances. Children aren't capable of making rational decisions. And children can be raised in an environment where they are essentially "groomed" to believe that the abuse they are given is "normal."

This is wrong. And it will always be a crime -- and this is because the justice system isn't governed by emotion; it's governed by reason.

Pedophiles can whine all day about being "oppressed" but the fact is that these people harm children in both mental and physical ways. It doesn't matter that they are a minority or whatever. That isn't the issue, and those are not sound grounds for supporting their right to abuse and harm.

The fact that most people think its wrong is not why it's illegal. Majority opinion is irrelevant when it comes to the rights of others. Most people in the Bible belt teach that drinking is a sin, but people drink in the south and are legally allowed to do so.

The grounds for labeling Pedophilia a crime is not because the Bible says so. It's not because it's a horrible gross thing (and we know it is). But it's a crime because it violates the right of a child to be a child, and because pornography associated with it encourages criminal behavior. Plain and simple. Done deal.

Analogies between Pedophilia and Polygamy, or Pedophilia and Homosexuality are not only logically bankrupt, but also extremely offensive and careless. Speaking as a forum goer, not as a moderator, I would ask that you not continue to make such an analogy because it has no merit and it's just plain ignorant.

Just what are you defending traditional marriage from? How is it that traditional marriage is being attacked by? I see no signs that traditional marriage is in any danger in my country where same-sex marriage has been legal since 2003.

From the lawsuits like in New Mexico and the many more suits that I believe will follow if gay marriage is legal.

Except that case wasn't about a church, it was about a business. And businesses cannot refuse to offer services BASED UPON race, gender, religion -- and in some states -- sexual orientation. And that's exactly why services were refused. And anyone can sue anyone -- you can't really help that.

Her religious freedom wasn't violated because she can hate gays and gay marriage all she wants, but if she offers a service to the public, she can't refuse customers on that basis -- if she didn't want to offer services to gays, she should have made up some excuse without mentioning their orientation.

Imagine if a Wal-Mart did that -- no, we don't sell groceries to Q***rs, sorry...

You bet they'd be sued.


But churches aren't businesses. So churches won't be forced to marry gay couples. And believe me, if it is legalized, you won't see flocks of gay couples running to any Baptist churches... . If Gay Christians insist that a minister marry them, they'll probably ask a more liberal, Christ-like Church to do so. Odds are, Gays will probably avoid fundamentalist churches. I mean, would you wanna get married in a church full of people who hate you, your spouse-to-be, and your soon-to-be-legalized relationship? Probably not...

They'd probably go to a judge. And saying that the judge's religious rights will be violated if he has to perform a gay wedding -- well... he shouldn't be in his position if he doesn't want to do that. If he didn't, then a couple could just find another judge. I mean, I wouldn't want to be married by a guy who was revolted by me and my spouse.... would you?

But don't worry, pastors can be just as anti-gay as they want to be with no threat of being sued because they are churches and they have the freedom to use hate-speech so long as it doesn't directly result in violence. This is America and that's how it works...

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 162:

My question is not whether you agree with either one or not but rather how can you call me an oppressor for something you feel is right but what if an even smaller group of people feel oppressed by us?

1 a archaic : suppress b : to crush or burden by abuse of power or authority
2 : to burden spiritually or mentally : weigh heavily upon
" op-pres-sor -pre-sr noun

Are they wrong?

No, homosexuals have every reason to feel oppressed by religious bigots.

: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

Examples of BIGOT
...
He was labeled a bigot after making some offensive comments.
<an incorrigible bigot who hasn't entertained a new thought in years>

Why are the pedophiles and polygamists different than anyone else than?

This has been explained to you ad nauseum throughout this thread. That you refuse to incorporate such into your thinking - and your arguments - indicates one who is obstinantly opposed to education.

This is what I see as a double standard. I am consistent and will defend traditional marriage.

You have throughout this thread been consistent in your calls for oppression, on that we can all agree.

Just as many Christians are "sincere in their belief" that they have a god-given right to restrict others' freedoms based solely on their consenting relationships.

Please answer my previous question

I did answer it, and you just quoted my answer.

That you fail to understand what constitutes an answer indicates a poor grasp of language.

Please show me where I have said that anyone can't live with anyone they wish or do as they please.

Notice here, dear observer, how lastcallhall conveniently doesn't notice that refusing to accept gay marriages as legal is to propose folks can't live according to lastcallhall's wishes.

To conclude otherwise is to cloud one's thinking in their own dooficity.

You can reject the Biblical message and do whatever you wish, that is your right. But please don't say that I am not fair about a debate you just disagree with what I believe.

Not only do I disagree with what you believe.

I DISAGREE WITH WHAT YOU ARE!

FREEDOM!

FREEDOM!

FREEDOM!

[SailingCyclops]

,<snip to here>

I believe that churches have the right to be as .... ignorant as they desire. I do not think churches should be forced to teach or accept or allow for anything they don't believe in.<snip to end>

Well, that's one way to put it...

Still, that's the way it should be...and if the proponents of gay marriage were willing to leave it that way, I would be campaigning for it.

Unfortunately, it's not.

How are proponents of gay marriage impinging on the rights of churches to teach or accept whatever they like? Explain please.

Bob

[SailingCyclops]

On what Biblical basis do you view Polygamy as a sin? Of all the social customs found in the Bible, this is the most widely accepted and uncondemned types of relationships there are. The Bible if anything, supports it.

How many wives did King David have? Upwards of 10, along with another 10 or so concubines.

Bob

[lastcallhall]

Polygamy and pedophilia shouldn't even be in the same sentence.

One is a criminal offense which violates the rights of children and is not consensual.

The other is not legally recognized, but is between consenting adults.

While both may be equally "disgusting" in your eyes, subjective emotional reaction to such things do not determine the law.

Law is determined by fairness, equality, and protecting the rights of others.

I agree pedophiles should be shot.

Pedophilia is not an orientation, it is an acquired fetish. It is traditionally acceptable in many ancient cultures, including the Bible and the Qur'an -- where young girls are married off to older men.

In modern society, pedophilia is illegal , not just because it offends our sensibilities, but because it violates the rights of children, and it is not consensual.

There is absolutely no credible evidence that shows that 12 year old's possess the ability to give their consent. Children aren't capable of defending themselves against unwanted advances. Children aren't capable of making rational decisions. And children can be raised in an environment where they are essentially "groomed" to believe that the abuse they are given is "normal."

This is wrong. And it will always be a crime -- and this is because the justice system isn't governed by emotion; it's governed by reason.

Pedophiles can whine all day about being "oppressed" but the fact is that these people harm children in both mental and physical ways. It doesn't matter that they are a minority or whatever. That isn't the issue, and those are not sound grounds for supporting their right to abuse and harm.

The fact that most people think its wrong is not why it's illegal. Majority opinion is irrelevant when it comes to the rights of others. Most people in the Bible belt teach that drinking is a sin, but people drink in the south and are legally allowed to do so.

The grounds for labeling Pedophilia a crime is not because the Bible says so. It's not because it's a horrible gross thing (and we know it is). But it's a crime because it violates the right of a child to be a child, and because pornography associated with it encourages criminal behavior. Plain and simple. Done deal.

Analogies between Pedophilia and Polygamy, or Pedophilia and Homosexuality are not only logically bankrupt, but also extremely offensive and careless. Speaking as a forum goer, not as a moderator, I would ask that you not continue to make such an analogy because it has no merit and it's just plain ignorant.

Please understand that I was not trying to make the point that gay people and pedophiles are the same. I was only using the argument that has been used against me by people that believe pedophiles should have equal rights. I do not mean to offend anyone and if anyone took my comments to equate being gay is equal to being a pedophile I am sorry. On this thread I have been accused many times of oppressing rights and I was simply making the point is there will always be groups of people that feel their rights are being oppressed.

Except that case wasn't about a church, it was about a business. And businesses cannot refuse to offer services BASED UPON race, gender, religion -- and in some states -- sexual orientation. And that's exactly why services were refused. And anyone can sue anyone -- you can't really help that.

Her religious freedom wasn't violated because she can hate gays and gay marriage all she wants, but if she offers a service to the public, she can't refuse customers on that basis -- if she didn't want to offer services to gays, she should have made up some excuse without mentioning their orientation.

I disagree I think the New Mexico couples rights were violated and they were sued for not performing the service. Is it a stretch for me to believe more lawsuits will follow if gay marriage is legal in the US?

But churches aren't businesses. So churches won't be forced to marry gay couples. And believe me, if it is legalized, you won't see flocks of gay couples running to any Baptist churches... . If Gay Christians insist that a minister marry them, they'll probably ask a more liberal, Christ-like Church to do so.

Christ like church?

Odds are, Gays will probably avoid fundamentalist churches. I mean, would you wanna get married in a church full of people who hate you, your spouse-to-be, and your soon-to-be-legalized relationship? Probably not...

Why do insist on saying I , or other fundamentalist christians, hate anyone? I don't hate anyone I am simply stating my views.

They'd probably go to a judge. And saying that the judge's religious rights will be violated if he has to perform a gay wedding -- well... he shouldn't be in his position if he doesn't want to do that. If he didn't, then a couple could just find another judge. I mean, I wouldn't want to be married by a guy who was revolted by me and my spouse.... would you?

I don't know any christian who is revolted by gays. (I do not consider the Westboro crowd christians) We are simply against a sinful lifestyle.

But don't worry, pastors can be just as anti-gay as they want to be with no threat of being sued because they are churches and they have the freedom to use hate-speech so long as it doesn't directly result in violence. This is America and that's how it works...

I listen to some of the most conservative preachers in the country and NONE of them hate gays, John Hagee, Jack Van Impe, Rod Parsley, Dr James Dobson. Please show evidence where any of those pastors have said they hate gays.

[lastcallhall]

No, homosexuals have every reason to feel oppressed by religious bigots.

I don't think I fit your definition of an oppressor because who do I have any power or authority over and have I burdened ANYONE spiritually or mentally? I think you give me way to much credit!

: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

Examples of BIGOT
...
He was labeled a bigot after making some offensive comments.
<an incorrigible bigot who hasn't entertained a new thought in years>

I guess I am a bit obstinant but aren't we all a little? I have come to my opinions after much study and prayer. I don't hate anyone and you can call me intolerant but I feel, at least on this thread, I can't have an opposing opinion. I have changed my mind on things and as a matter of fact once due to this website.

This has been explained to you ad nauseum throughout this thread. That you refuse to incorporate such into your thinking - and your arguments - indicates one who is obstinantly opposed to education.

Actually it had not been addressed but now it has, thanks

You have throughout this thread been consistent in your calls for oppression, on that we can all agree.

At least you agree that I am consistent

That you fail to understand what constitutes an answer indicates a poor grasp of language.

I feel I have a good, not great grasp on the language but if I don't understand something I am not afraid to ask.

Notice here, dear observer, how lastcallhall conveniently doesn't notice that refusing to accept gay marriages as legal is to propose folks can't live according to lastcallhall's wishes.

No so far most states agree with my view, so it is more than just me, again I think you give me too much credit.

To conclude otherwise is to cloud one's thinking in their own dooficity.

Here I can admit I am not sure what this means

Not only do I disagree with what you believe.

I DISAGREE WITH WHAT YOU ARE!

FREEDOM!

FREEDOM!

FREEDOM!

That is your right but why is it ok for you to disagree with who I am as a person but I can't oppose gay marriage because the Bible calls it sin?

[lastcallhall]

Let's talk about these one at a time, starting with pedophilia.

Pedophiles might say they're being oppressed (as you point out), but the fact of the matter is that what pedophiles want is demonstrably harmful and amounts to rape. The nonconsensual nature of pedophilia makes it a bad analogy to homosexuality. Pedophilia can't be legal because it harms children. Who does homosexuality harm?

I agree with you about pedophiles, my point was they also call me an oppressor.

Next, polygamy. Assuming that the relationship is consensual, I don't believe we should stop them because they aren't harming anyone either. The problem arises with legalizing polygamy because it would no longer be equal rights for everyone if polygamists received more benefits and rights due to having more partners in the relationship. If there were a way to work it out such that polygamists received the same raw amount of rights and benefits as couples then I don't believe their rights should be infringed either -- even if I disagree with polygamy as a practice.

I say let them do what they want as well but if they wanted legal marriage status I would also vote no.

No, you missed the analogy. Let me try it this way. These are the reasons I've seen you provide for voting for oppressive bills:

1) Your religion thinks homosexuality is inherently wrong.
2) Some (not all) homosexuals have attacked religious liberty.
3) Allowing homosexuals to have equality would open the door for more attacks on religious liberty.

Now let's revisit the hypothetical scenario. Let's say there's a bill that you can vote for which will make idol worshipping illegal. Let's say that a pagan couple sues a photographer for not filming their wedding. According to the reasons you gave for voting to oppress homosexuals, it seems that to be consistent you must also vote to oppress pagans' religious freedom too:

1) Your religion thinks idolatry is inherently wrong.
2) Some (not all) idol worshippers have hypothetically attacked Christian religious liberty.
3) By your reasoning, allowing idol worshippers to have their religious equality would open the door for more attacks on Christian religious liberty.

According to the exact same reasoning you use against homosexual marriage, it appears that to be consistent you would also have to vote to oppress idol worshippers. So, would you do it?

If not, why not? What's the difference -- all the exact same reasons you gave for voting against homosexual equality apply!

If it was to ban idol worship in your home I would not vote for the bill just like I would not vote for a bill to run into your house and see who you are sleeping with. If the idol worship bill was for a government recognized idol worship ceremony and then that group would be a protected class that could sue me then yes I would vote for the bill. I hope I am now consistent.

[dianaiad]

,<snip to here>

I believe that churches have the right to be as .... ignorant as they desire. I do not think churches should be forced to teach or accept or allow for anything they don't believe in.<snip to end>

Well, that's one way to put it...

Still, that's the way it should be...and if the proponents of gay marriage were willing to leave it that way, I would be campaigning for it.

Unfortunately, it's not.

How are proponents of gay marriage impinging on the rights of churches to teach or accept whatever they like? Explain please.

Bob

I take it that you have missed most of the thread? Elane Photography didn't want to take photographs of a same sex commitment ceremony because it was against her religion. The couple sued her, won the case, made her pay for the court costs, won an injunction forcing the owner to photograph gay commitment ceremonies whether they were against her religion or not...oh, by the way, evidently they drove her out of business, too. Certainly her domain name is for sale, and all references to her business are old ones.

THAT, Bob, is the very essence of impinging on the rights of someone to accept...and worship, and practice, their beliefs as they like.

Please note: Elane Photography was not attempting to stop the commitment ceremony. It was not insulting the gay couple. It was not campaigning against it. Elaine, the owner, simply declined to participate in the ceremony.

And she was told that she had no right to refuse. THAT, my friend, is coercion at its most basic level.

[SailingCyclops]

,<snip to here>

I believe that churches have the right to be as .... ignorant as they desire. I do not think churches should be forced to teach or accept or allow for anything they don't believe in.<snip to end>

Well, that's one way to put it...

Still, that's the way it should be...and if the proponents of gay marriage were willing to leave it that way, I would be campaigning for it.

Unfortunately, it's not.

How are proponents of gay marriage impinging on the rights of churches to teach or accept whatever they like? Explain please.

Bob

.... Elane Photography didn't want to take photographs of a same sex commitment ceremony because it was against her religion.

Elane Photography is not a church, it's a business open to the public.

You didn't answer the question, let me ask it again.

How are proponents of gay marriage impinging on the rights of churches to teach or accept whatever they like? Explain please.

If I run a BUSINESS, it is ILLEGAL for me to deny goods and services to anyone. Including Christians (aren't you glad about that?), Jews, Blacks, women, gays, Muslims, atheists...... etc etc.

The business entity Elane Photography broke the law, got sued, and paid the price for it's transgression. That in no way impinges the rights of any church to do, teach, or say anything.

Bob