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?

[Strider324]

Just because I'm pedantic about this and don't want anyone to mix apples with oranges :

The subject being discussed is the 'constitutional prohibition against discrimination', not to be confused with the subjective way humans discriminate on a daily basis, or even with discrimination that we might consider bigoted, but is nonetheless legal.

I can discriminate against lawyers any time I wish - they are not (currently) a 'protected class'. Same for people with bolts in their noses, politicians, and people with green eyes (they're just evil!).

If a lawyer is black, or gay, or female, or muslim - they would be free to argue that I discriminated based on their protected status rather than just on the basis that they were a stinking lawyer - and interestingly, Civil Rights Law here places the burden on me to prove the latter. This is why it is prudent business practice to enact policies that treat everyone the same, as it may be difficult to prove you discriminated in a manner that was not a violation.

The above case is pretty clear. When she gave a quote to the woman she assumed was straight while denying service to the Gay woman, her case was lost.

[Strider324]

You should be very happy about that situation. The time will come when religion and myth will be as out-dated and reviled as which craft, and then, you will be glad that you can't be discriminated against.

Bob

Don't hold your breath, the death of Christianity has been predicted for 2,000 years, and tens of millions have been killed in the futile effort. In fact there has probably never been a time in history when more are coming to faith in Christ than today. Truly, the church is an anvil that has worn out many hammers.

I have a suggestion for Elaine here in NM the next time two gays want her services: During the shoot excercise your rights to free expression of religion and tell them that homosexual activity is an abomination in God's sight that leads to hell, and that they need to repent and be saved. Perhaps then they will feel more comfortable with another photographer.

I assume your numbers include those whom Christianity burned alive in a festive public setting as the faithful cheered?

Full disclosure and everything.....

[dianaiad]

From Post 193:

...
To claim that the whole thing is settled because Elane Photography lost the first case...and even the first appeal...is begging a very large question.
...

To me, it begs the question of how long we'll consider legitimate the paranoias and biases of folks who think there's some sky daddy up there concerned about the doings of humans.

Tell me.

How does someone else's belief in some 'sky daddy' affect YOU?

Are you not free to mock and denigrate them? ARe you not free to prohibit them from praying anywhere near where you are?

How are you ANY different, in any way, from Elane Photography? You do not wish to be forced to participate in a religious ceremony (like a prayer at a graduation ceremony, or even to have the valedictorian thank God in his/her speech) and enforce that by lawsuit. You have the absolute freedom to choose whether you will go to church, or not.

I submit that you are worse. You not only want to make sure you don't have to participate in any religious ceremony, or have one imposed upon you, you want to make absolutely certain that religious folks MUST be forced to participate in yours.

In all honesty, the hypocrisy is making me grind my teeth.

[Strider324]

In fact there has probably never been a time in history when more are coming to faith in Christ than today.

Eh, not so much....

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_prac2.htm

[Strider324]

In all honesty, the hypocrisy is making me grind my teeth.

I feel ya, babe.

[Goat]

Would a commissioned poet who refused to compose a poem for a gay marriage be within their rights?

That depends. If the poet advertised "Poems for weddings", and that was his or her business, then it would be illegal to deny the work based on bigotry. The same would hold true for the painter and sculptor.

Can a person have their free speech curtailed whenever somebody decides to write them a check?

This has nothing to do with free speech, it has to do with commerce. If you are in the business of providing a service to the public, you cannot discriminate about who you sell your services to. Simple.

Bob

I don't think it is that simple. Photography is an art form. The photographers at Elane are artists. I think removing an artist's ability to be selective in their subject matter violates the artist's first amendment rights. I don't think the government should be allowed to compel speech just because somebody shows up with a checkbook.

While photography can be considered an art form, doing photo shoots for a wedding is not an 'art form' it is a service.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 202:

Tell me.

How does someone else's belief in some 'sky daddy' affect YOU?

It prevents me from buying alcohol on Sunday for one. It forces me to continually refute unwarranted, outlandish claims. It forces me to stay on guard against those who seek to water down science education. It forces me to stay on guard against those who would oppress their fellow human beings.

Are you not free to mock and denigrate them?

Sure I can. However, I was speaking specifically against the oppression of others by theists who think they have a god-given right to refuse others their rights.

ARe you not free to prohibit them from praying anywhere near where you are?

No. A silent prayer will go undetected.

How are you ANY different, in any way, from Elane Photography?

I understand that to be a public business (or a decent human being), I shouldn't discriminate against folks based on who they love.

That, to me, is a huge difference.

You do not wish to be forced to participate in a religious ceremony (like a prayer at a graduation ceremony, or even to have the valedictorian thank God in his/her speech) and enforce that by lawsuit. You have the absolute freedom to choose whether you will go to church, or not.

But I don't have the freedom, as an individual of conscience, to pledge allegiance to this nation, a nation for which I've served, unless I also accept that whole "under God" deal - which I don't.

I submit that you are worse. You not only want to make sure you don't have to participate in any religious ceremony, or have one imposed upon you, you want to make absolutely certain that religious folks MUST be forced to participate in yours.

Poppycock.

I endeavor to make religious bigots - as properly defined - see the error of their ways regarding those they seek to oppress. What they do in the privacy of their churches is their business (with some caveats regarding safety and such).

In all honesty, the hypocrisy is making me grind my teeth.

Grind 'em down to stumps for all I care. I have no sympathy for the oppressor.

[dianaiad]

Just because I'm pedantic about this and don't want anyone to mix apples with oranges :

The subject being discussed is the 'constitutional prohibition against discrimination', not to be confused with the subjective way humans discriminate on a daily basis, or even with discrimination that we might consider bigoted, but is nonetheless legal.

I can discriminate against lawyers any time I wish - they are not (currently) a 'protected class'. Same for people with bolts in their noses, politicians, and people with green eyes (they're just evil!).

If a lawyer is black, or gay, or female, or muslim - they would be free to argue that I discriminated based on their protected status rather than just on the basis that they were a stinking lawyer - and interestingly, Civil Rights Law here places the burden on me to prove the latter. This is why it is prudent business practice to enact policies that treat everyone the same, as it may be difficult to prove you discriminated in a manner that was not a violation.

The above case is pretty clear. When she gave a quote to the woman she assumed was straight while denying service to the Gay woman, her case was lost.

I"ll admit one thing: she was (Elane) sloppy. She did what everybody here was doing, and made the mistake that the court did. She did NOT offer the same service to the woman she thought was straight that she denied the gay woman.

In fact, the gay woman mislead/lied to her, by asking for quotes to photograph a wedding. By not telling her that this was not a wedding, but a commitment ceremony, the woman was lying to Elane, who had made it quite clear that she only did 'Traditional weddings."

Do I think Elaine of Elan photography was a bigot? Yep. Would I have done what she did? Nope. I would have (and I have said so fairly often) shot the ceremony. I would have done the research so that I could do the best job possible.

But that's not the point, is it?

[SailingCyclops]

I don't think it is that simple. Photography is an art form. The photographers at Elane are artists. I think removing an artist's ability to be selective in their subject matter violates the artist's first amendment rights. I don't think the government should be allowed to compel speech just because somebody shows up with a checkbook.

There are photographers who make art, for art's sake like Ansel Adams and Dorothea Lange then showcase in galleries and sell the art as art, and there are photographers who contract jobs.

Contract work IE portraits, weddings, commercial (photographing products for ads), journalism, etc. are works for hire. I want 20 8X10 glossies of that car over there so I can sell it, is work for hire, as is photograph my wedding for a fee.

When you contract for work like this, yes it's "art", but it is really more commercial contract work, and subject to commercial law.

In the case of Elan, that was strictly contract work done under a real contract. You can't tell me there is an artistic difference photographing a gay couple as opposed to a straight couple.

Bob

[dianaiad]

From Post 202:

Tell me.

How does someone else's belief in some 'sky daddy' affect YOU?

It prevents me from buying alcohol on Sunday for one.

Poor baby. Stock up on Saturday. Tell me; are you the ONLY person who can't buy booze on Sunday? Oh, and what does the law SAY about the reason for not selling booze on Sunday? Somthin' tells me that the reason for it is not religious....or trust me, bub, you'd be able to buy booze on Sunday.

As to that, sir, the only reason you HAVE a weekend with a day to rest...and drink booze...is because of someone else's belief in some 'sky daddy.'

It forces me to continually refute unwarranted, outlandish claims.

Someone is holding a gun to your head, that you have to speak up and 'refute unwarranted, outlandish claims?' You can't just live your life without doing so? Odd, so many people manage...

It forces me to stay on guard against those who seek to water down science education. It forces me to stay on guard against those who would oppress their fellow human beings.

And without religion, you wouldn't have to guard against such things? Stalin, Pol Pot, Lenin, the "Young Turks" would have been rather pleased to hear that. Some of them might even still be alive and doing what they did.

Are you not free to mock and denigrate them?

Sure I can. However, I was speaking specifically against the oppression of others by theists who think they have a god-given right to refuse others their rights.

What right? The right to force someone to provide a service that they do not advertise, wouldn't offer to anyone else, and is against their religion, just because you think you are special and deserve it?

ARe you not free to prohibit them from praying anywhere near where you are?

No. A silent prayer will go undetected.

Right; so you have the right to tell others that they have freedom of speech...as long as they don't actually say anything?

How are you ANY different, in any way, from Elane Photography?

I understand that to be a public business (or a decent human being), I shouldn't discriminate against folks based on who they love.

That, to me, is a huge difference.

Ah, now there's the thing. "Shouldn't' is vastly different from 'can't'.
No, they should not have been discriminatory in that way. I would not have. However, the 'you have to see things my way and do what I want you to do or I will ruin you" attitude is even more wrong than the original discrimination.

Having a photographer refuse to shoot a commitment ceremony? The photographer loses money and reputation, becomes known for being a bigot....and the couple finds another photographer who would do a better job anyway.

This way? Sorry. It REEKS of oppression--and not against gays. The gay couple wasn't hurt in any way by this. Elan photography was destroyed. How is this NOT oppression beyond acceptability?

You do not wish to be forced to participate in a religious ceremony (like a prayer at a graduation ceremony, or even to have the valedictorian thank God in his/her speech) and enforce that by lawsuit. You have the absolute freedom to choose whether you will go to church, or not.

But I don't have the freedom, as an individual of conscience, to pledge allegiance to this nation, a nation for which I've served, unless I also accept that whole "under God" deal - which I don't.

Don't go there; that irritates me, too. Not the part about 'under God' in and of itself, particularly, but...the original writer didn't put it in there. That is annoying.

HOWEVER, saying this doesn't violate any religious principle you have, does it? By the way, you are quite free to not say it. Nobody is going to put you in jail, or sue you, or destroy your livelihood if you skip that part--or skip it altogether.

I submit that you are worse. You not only want to make sure you don't have to participate in any religious ceremony, or have one imposed upon you, you want to make absolutely certain that religious folks MUST be forced to participate in yours.

Poppycock.

Really convincing rejoinder, there, Joey.

I endeavor to make religious bigots - as properly defined - see the error of their ways regarding those they seek to oppress. What they do in the privacy of their churches is their business (with some caveats regarding safety and such).

There is a very BIG difference between arguing with them, debating with them, and attempting to show them the "error of their ways,".....and destroying their ability to make a living, suing them, forcing them by law to do it your way, and completely destroying THEIR right to free speech.

In all honesty, the hypocrisy is making me grind my teeth.

Grind 'em down to stumps for all I care. I have no sympathy for the oppressor.

Nor do I...and right now, that oppressor would be (given who was truly hurt in this one) NOT the photographer who simply refused to participate in an event that was against her religion.