Are Biblical Literalist Values 'Pro-Family?'

[Haven]

Conservative Christians who oppose gay rights (including, but not limited to, marriage equality, adoption rights, and employment anti-discrimination laws) and women's reproductive rights (including, but not limited to, rights to abortion and contraception) often claim that they're promoting a "pro-family" agenda.

That is, their opposition to equality for LGBTQ people, opposition to women's rights to control their own bodies, and support for what they call "traditional marriage" (man-woman, where the man rules over the woman) somehow constitutes support for the family and is in some sense good for children.

They, of course, justify their positions through a literalistic interpretation of the Bible, which they believe justifies sexism and heterosexism.

Obviously, I find this ridiculous. In my opinion, the values of conservative Christianity are radically anti-family -- they seek to undermine and destroy LGBTQ families, woman-headed families, and non-"traditional" families of all kinds. To me, "pro-family" implies a stance that supports equality and flourishing for all families, not just those that fit some absurd Victorian-Biblical ideal.

Debate questions: Are Biblical literalist values 'pro-family?' Do conservative Christian values actually support the family, or are they simply expressions of prejudice? Should the "traditional family" be held up as the standard for society? Can "non-traditional" families thrive? Does secular liberalism provide a better basis for the dignity of individuals, families, and children than Biblical literalism?

[Zzyzx]

Conservative Christians who oppose gay rights (including, but not limited to, marriage equality, adoption rights, and employment anti-discrimination laws) and women's reproductive rights (including, but not limited to, rights to abortion and contraception) often claim that they're promoting a "pro-family" agenda.

Which is a fact. The "Christian family" is man and woman as husband and wife and their children.

Since Christians divorce at about the same rates as every other group, they must not have much respect for the Christian family (except in theory or in their imagination).

Non and anti Christians can reject that, as they are not Christians.

Agreed – and those who choose something other than the "Christian family" should be under no obligation, pressure, coercion, etc to conform to Christian ideals. Right?

The persecution of Christians (by charging them with homophobia, a hate group label,

It is decidedly NOT "persecution" to recognize homophobia in individual and group actions and statements. Of course, those who are homophobic resent being identified as such

It is difficult to envision an 80% majority being "persecuted" by a 1.5% minority.

intolerant, bigots, etc., etc.,)

What do we call people who exhibit characteristics of intolerance and bigotry? Some call them Christians; however, I disagree with the blanket label because I know many Christians who are neither (and a few that are intolerant and bigoted).

When an individual acts in an intolerant or bigoted fashion do they have legitimate grounds for objecting to being identified as such?

that hold to this truth are suffering a campaign of hate directed at denigrating Christianity and Christians.

That Christians desire to live as Christians should not be the target of a political or social campaign.

How, exactly, are Christians being prevented from living as they choose?

It seems as though the real objection is that the homophobes, intolearants, bigots are being hindered from dictating how OTHER people should live (attempting to force Christian beliefs and practices onto others).

That is, their opposition to equality for LGBTQ people, opposition to women's rights to control their own bodies, and support for what they call "traditional marriage" (man-woman, where the man rules over the woman) somehow constitutes support for the family and is in some sense good for children.

"LGBT" and of of course the ominous "Q" (other people's children targeted by the gay pride movement), are newly minted propaganda tactics that were invented in the late 20th century by gay pride proponents and adherents.

Concern for children is often cited by those who attempt to impose their "morals" onto others while condoning and/or covering-up pedophilia within their own hierarchies (by supposedly "pious" perpetrators)

They, of course, justify their positions through a literalistic interpretation of the Bible, which they believe justifies sexism and heterosexism.

The truth and fact that "marriage" in the Bible is man and woman husband and wife.

The bible is NOT binding on anyone other than those who chose to worship it and/or its characters.

To label Christian morality as hatred, a phobia and an attack on non-Christians is persecution.

Many Christians seem to enjoy thinking of themselves and their organization as being "persecuted." Perhaps that stems from glorification of "persecuted saints" in the literature and dogma.

That would be labeling the Messiah as a homophobic, hateful, bigot.

"Messiah"? Some apply that term to different people, including a wandering preacher who lived and died a couple thousand years ago. Little is known by Christian scholars and theologians about his actual words and deeds; however, less informed worshipers think they know all about such things ("ignorance is bliss"?).

An extremely hostile position to hold. But as can been seen from the OP, this is precisely the charge.

Perhaps some people who view themselves and their organization as "persecuted" can read that into the OP

Heterosexism (biology and nature is heterorsexist) , though an absurd term, is also an invention of the 20th century.

Many religionists are quick to cite "science" when it appears to support their "arguments" and reject it when scientific findings contradict their dogma. "Pick and choose science" is similar to "pick and choose Christianity" – glorify the good parts (that agree with you) and ignore or deny anything that conflicts)

Type in heterosexist and watch SpellCheck not know what it is.

Those who do not limit themselves to spell-check can use any Internet search engine to learn the definition of the term ("Heterosexism is a form of discrimination that favors heterosexuals over lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals.").

What's the point?

Obviously, I find this ridiculous. In my opinion, the values of conservative Christianity are radically anti-family -- they seek to undermine and destroy LGBTQ families, woman-headed families, and non-"traditional" families of all kinds.

That is simply a false charge. Non and anti Christians live now in non Christian family homes made up of anything thy so choose at this moment and have for millenia.

Do many Christians also "live in homes made up of anything they so choose"?

Christian marriages seem to fail at about the same rates as other groups. Christian teen girls get pregnant at about common rates. Christians are incarcerated at high rates.

If there was some positive influence of Christianity it would seem as though the rates of divorce, teen pregnancy and incarceration would be FAR lower than other groups – but they are not.

The dark question is: Why do Christians have to submit to LGBT authority over their lives and rights?

THEY DON'T – There is no such thing as "LGBT authority" over the lives of ANYONE.

How, exactly, do you think that the rights of Christians or their lives are being "submitted" to LGBT?

What many Christians seem to find objectionable is being limited from imposing their religious beliefs and practices on others and LIMITING the rights of others.

Debate questions: Are Biblical literalist values 'pro-family?'

Immutably. Yes.

Correction: Literalist biblical values are "pro" only their own concept / definition of family.

Do conservative Christian values actually support the family, or are they simply expressions of prejudice?

Calling or labeling or charging "Christians" as being prejudiced or worse because they live as Christians should, is persecution. Also, a hate crime and discrimination.

There is little or no objection to Christians living as they think the should (or pretending to).

However, there is objection to Christians attempting to impose their beliefs and practices onto others who do not choose that god-worship system.

Should the "traditional family" be held up as the standard for society?

Yes. It is the model that is held up to be copied.

"Traditional family" can be variously defined and varies with time and place. An extended family with community involvement may be an ideal environment for raising children. The nuclear family (couple and children) seems to have lost some advantages present when a number of adults influence children.

Keeping to Biblical reality is honesty and not hate or bigotry.

Claiming to "keep to biblical reality" is DISHONEST unless it is actually done beyond pick and choose level.

Attacking the people that choose to live a Biblical life is discrimination and hate towards them.[/quote]
Has anyone in these threads ATTACKED people because they "choose to live a biblical life?"

What is often attacked is the hypocrisy of claiming to do so while ignoring

Can "non-traditional" families thrive?

How many people end up in the prison system, the metal health treatment system or in the morgue as a young person that come from the "non-traditional" family?

Nice creative dance to avoid the question.

Christians predominate in the prison population (in proportion to their representation in the population in general) and presumably in the mental health and morgues as well.

Does secular liberalism provide a better basis for the dignity of individuals, families, and children than Biblical literalism?

No. The Bible does not allow for an "anything goes" formation for family. In fact, there is the story of the son that left the family to embrace a liberal life and that is known as the prodigal son story to this day. Also, you may want to study what happened to King David as he had trouble with his dysfunctional non-traditional family.

Bible stories impress some believers.

LGBT's can live any way they chose. And have since the neologism has been invented. To demand by law or accusation and coersion . . . that Christians have to live an LGBT lifestyle and worldview is persecution of Christians,

WHERE exactly are Christians forced to live an LGBT lifestyle? The honest answer is NOWHERE.

What many seem to resent is being prevented from inflicting their beliefs and claims upon others.

no different frm that of what the pagan Romans demanded of Christians at the beginning of The Church era.

Many modern Christians seem to enjoy feeling "persecuted", identifying with early or past members of their religious sect.

[KCKID]

"LGBT" and of of course the ominous "Q" (other people's children targeted by the gay pride movement), are newly minted propaganda tactics that were invented in the late 20th century by gay pride proponents and adherents.

Just a little bit of nit-picking here. A similar claim could be made for the term "arsenokoitai" as used by Paul in 1Corinthians 6:9. "Arsenokoitai", recently defined without any evidence as 'homosexual', could be said to be a newly minted propaganda tactic invented in the late 20th century by Christian Fundamentalists and adherents. In fact, it would appear that the original scriptures have been altered by modern translators to accomodate this anti-gay mindset.

[FinalEnigma]

Can "non-traditional" families thrive?

How is this even a question?

How many people end up in the prison system, the metal health treatment system or in the morgue as a young person that come from the "non-traditional" family?

this does not address the question. how about this:

George Washington, Barack Obama, Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, and Bill Clinton were raised in a single parent household. They were all presidents of the United States. (http://www.successful-single-parenting. ... stics.html)

I think these are/were quite successful people. children of single parents actually seem oddly over-represented here.

Various famous homosexual couples with thriving families:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/thenewnormal/th ... r-families

Conservative Christians who oppose gay rights (including, but not limited to, marriage equality, adoption rights, and employment anti-discrimination laws) and women's reproductive rights (including, but not limited to, rights to abortion and contraception) often claim that they're promoting a "pro-family" agenda.

Which is a fact. The "Christian family" is man and woman as husband and wife and their children. Non and anti Christians can reject that, as they are not Christians.

the problem with this is that nobody is trying to harm or change Christian's families. You can claim that you are 'pro family' and trying to protect christian families, but from what?
gay marriage is not mandatory. what is the difference in effect upon a hetero-normative christian family between a gay couple living together, and a gay couple getting married?
opposing gay rights =/= defending your family. nobody is going to kidnap you and force you to marry someone of your own gender.

The persecution of Christians (by charging them with homophobia, a hate group label, intolerant, bigots, etc., etc.,) that hold to this truth are suffering a campaign of hate directed at denigrating Christianity and Christians. That Christians desire to live as Christians should not be the target of a political or social campaign.

American Christians (particularly WASPS) are quite possibly the least persecuted group in the history of the world, and it greatly angers me when such groups attempt to claim that they are persecuted. When you attack somebody and get called out on it, that isn't persecution.

This blatant, sickening abuse of the term 'persecution' cheapens the suffering of all the groups who actually HAVE been persecuted, like African Americans, Jews, homosexuals, and the mentally ill.

there were over 2000 reported anti-gay violent hate crimes in the united states in 2012, and 25 murders. There were about 100 anti-christian hate crimes. (http://www.christianpost.com/news/fbi-h ... 12-109607/)

(http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/fb ... 1/27/79401)

Christians are claiming persecution by LGBT groups? This is disgusting and absurd.


YOU ARE NOT BEING PERSECUTED BY THE PEOPLE YOU ARE BEATING AND KILLING IN THE STREETS.

[master_blaster]

Haven wrote:

One of the biggest problems highlighted is the fact that gay unions are not usually monogamous and partners tend not to stay together for any length of time. Therefore, the home they provide is unstable.

Pretty ridiculous when hetero marriages are what made a mockery of marriage before gays even pushed for the right. 50% divorce rate, tons of adultery. Since males are far less monogamous, i would bet lesbian couples have less cheating than hetero, so with your logic only *lesbian* couples should be able to marry, not male + female.

In addition, many married couples never have or want kids. If having kids is required in your view, then again tons of heteros should be banned from marriage too. Not to mention, why the fuck can my uncle marry a 4th time but a gay person can't marry even once? What a joke! Finally, even if 9/10 gay couples didn't stay together, that means you're going to screw the 1/10 who would have a stable home? These assumptions are all just excuse for discrimination

They fought for gay "marriage" because they wanted to stick it to all the people who find their lifestyle aberrant, not so that they could actually "marry" someone of the same sex.

Again just generalizing. Watch "It can happen to you" on youtube about the young man whose partner died and he couldn't even go to funeral cause they weren't allowed to marry. There's over 1000 rights being denied to unmarried couples. At least bother to look this up before bitching.

Students who report being gay or bisexual are more likely than heterosexual students to engage in unhealthy risk behaviors such as tobacco use, alcohol and other drug use, sexual risk behaviors, suicidal behaviors, and violence, according to a study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The study reported: “the prevalence among gay or lesbian students was higher than the prevalence among heterosexual students for a median of 63.8% of all the risk behaviors measured, and the prevalence among bisexual students was higher than the prevalence among heterosexual students for a median of 76.0% of all the risk behaviors measured.�

Specifically, gay or lesbian students had higher rates for seven of the 10 health risk categories (behaviors that contribute to violence, behaviors related to attempted suicide, tobacco use, alcohol use, other drug use, sexual behaviors, and weight management).

Given that homosexuals have shorter life spans because of sexually-transmitted diseases, high rates of depression and suicide, it's not a healthy lifestyle to pursue.

Did you ever stop and think about WHY this is? People in general fall into depression and pursue unhealthy behavior when things fall apart in their life, often due to crap beyond their control, especially at young age. Teenage years suck shit in general. That's why hetero teenage suicide rate is higher than adult. It's not just gays. But i'll give you example:

In 8th grade i was outed and got asked even in the halls by random students i knew by name only "are you gay? are you a fag? etc" My friends all rejected and wouldn't speak to me again. I couldn't make new friends either when practically the whole school knew of this. Rather intense bullying began by 9th grade, verbally and some assault like having rocks thrown at me in parking lot by several guys till i was knocked out. I woke 2 hours later, bleeding. I had glitter thrown in my hair, found a knife in my locker that i took as death threat. My desk in one class was rigged so that it collapsed when i sat down one day. My car tires were slashed. None of the so-called adults would do anything at all, because it was a racist/homophobic town. Similar to when a black girl got told "KKK you're gonna die" and got in fist fight with the asshole, and he wasn't punished at all. Then some students drew swastikas on their arms thinking it's cool. But nothing was done.

I feared for my life most days and fell into deep depression in which there were several periods i couldn't get out of bed for 2-3 days at a time. My parents were worried but i couldn't dare tell them anything. I was previously a happy energetic kid in multiple sports and now was overweight and unwelcome on any team sport. I turned to alcohol and some weed to try and cope, as i was truly alone. By end of 10th grade, i was called to principal's office as they found a letter with my name on it talking of how i loved sucking dick and so on. I didn't write it of course. They told me even i didn't, i need to "stop drawing attention" to myself.

So while i knew for a fact i was driven to all this and decided at this point to transfer schools cause i couldn't take it anymore, like you these bastards just blamed me for it all. I'm sure in their view i needed to just stop being gay or whatever BS. So even despite having like 3.9 GPA, i left to escape the intolerable hateful environment. Then at 2nd school, it took quite a while for me to talk to anyone, as i didn't want them to find out my sexuality and torment for it too, and i was nervous around people now and had developed attitude that people just suck. Even 2 years later going to a top college, i was still visibly depressed and struggled with energy to get to class and so on. In the end it took 10 years to recover from that trauma and begin socializing again. If i had not been treated so horribly i would've been fine and not gone into "unhealthy risk behaviors" so perhaps you should speak out against bullying instead.

Children raised by gays or lesbians are more likely to experiment in same-sex relationships. Therefore, they are being encouraged to go into a lifestyle that is just plain unhealthy.

This just completely displays your ignorance on this matter. Experimenting almost always is a puberty hormone thing and refers to making out and such, certainly not long term relationship with full blown sex if they're truly hetero. There's no encouraging of that either, i highly doubt it, nor is it as you seem to suggest going "into a lifestyle" of homosexuality permanently. People cannot be coerced into becoming homosexual if born hetero, or vice versa. It's that simple, so you're overreacting.

Basically, what we have are a few people selfishly demanding that they have a right to redefine marriage to suit themselves and to have children -- without caring whether it will be good for those children or not.

Um first of all, many of these children were abused or abandoned or came from crappy foster care before adopted by a gay couple and *that* is probably a bigger reason why they *might* have some negative outcomes.

It is you who is completely selfish here, demanding that someone has to live as 2nd class and never have kids or those 1000+ rights because your religion or prejudice wishes it so. Also with heteros, accidental pregnancy happens all the time, along with trailer trash having 10 kids, single moms on welfare and so on, so don't give me that shit as if they always care about whether they are fit to raise kids.

Lastly, for those who think homosexuals are born that way, here's a testimony from a man who used to believe that of himself, but found out differently:

Hahaha, this right here singularly discredits everything else you said. Science along with what the vast majority of gays will tell you, has proven in past couple decades that people are born homosexual. I had signs back at age 4-5 at least and got teased for my effeminate behavior, and became attracted to guys at age 12 which made it obvious and undeniable i was gay. I can guarantee you there was never a choice along the way and why the hell would i choose that, to get my ass kicked in high school and lose all my friends? I never even met another openly gay person till college.

So puberty triggers the attractions, researchers in one study gathered a bunch of 5 year olds and observed their behavior and guessed with high accuracy which would turn out gay, and even twins are 50% likely to both be gay when 1 is. Also they've successfully changed orientation of some animal species such as insects and sheep, simply by changing hormone blasts and genes while in the womb.

I also don't know why you even bother with this like what, if someone did choose something harmless like being attracted to men they should be hated and denied all rights and go to hell? This is big reason young people are leaving the church in droves, treating homosexuals like they're inhuman.

[master_blaster]

Haven

The persecution of Christians (by charging them with homophobia, a hate group label, intolerant, bigots, etc., etc.,) that hold to this truth are suffering a campaign of hate directed at denigrating Christianity and Christians. That Christians desire to live as Christians should not be the target of a political or social campaign.
=

Making me laugh hard. After christians are denied 1000+ rights as gay couples are *then* you can make accusations of persecution. Being called out for what most of them are (bigots) is nowhere near what they deserve for what they've done to homosexuals across the world.

The dark question is: Why do Christians have to submit to LGBT authority over their lives and rights? =

Again overreacting nonsense. They aren't submitting to anything as gay marriage affects them not one iota.