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?

[Darias]

As a lesbian who's planning on getting married to the love of my life when I get to grad school in Ontario (where it will be legal) I feel obliged to preface this response by thanking the Americans who value equality and protecting my rights from those who are less inclined to protect the liberties and the equality of their neighbors like Mr. Daly. I can only hope that he never has to face the same sort of persecution, slander/libel, scorn, and outright hatred that the people he attempts to deny their equality from them face on a daily basis thanks to his intolerant diatribes.

This is where I get lost with this argument, I don't hate anyone. I know there are people out there that do (the nuts at westboro) but the christians I know love on people. What we are accused of by you and others is hating or slandering you when we are speaking our point of view. It is not hatred, I have known many gay people and don't hate any of them but I will not lie and say that the lifestyle is acceptable. It is no different when I talk to one of my high school friends that is single and still sleeps with random woman, I tell him that it is sin and he needs to change course. I love him like a brother but his lifestyle is not acceptable to God and I would not back down from that. So we as christians are no picking on you but speaking the truth of the Bible, I am sorry if some people speak hatred.

Extramarital sex, provided that it is between two consenting adults, is legal. And while I choose not to engage in it for my own moral reasons, and while you may not choose to engage it in for your own reasons (which probably are derived from the same evangelical culture), all of us may do so without any legal repercussions -- societal judgement probably, personal guilt perhaps, but legally it is fine.

The same cannot be said for same-sex marriage, at least not on a federal level.

You may be appalled by what you believe is a "lifestyle," but that is not a logical reason to prohibit the rights of others who aren't bound by your sense of morality.

(1) I don't think anyone would be foolish enough to require Christians or their churches to perform any actions that go against their beliefs. A private business should be able to decide for themselves who to serve and who not to serve -- with some exceptions, such as in health and mental health occupations. I for one would fight against any attempt by anybody to force religious folks or their organizations to perform services they don't want to perform based on their beliefs -- again, unless funded publicly or in a field where such isn't viable such as in health fields.

I just gave proof where a couple got in trouble for turning down the business and they may loose suppliers. Why should a doctor who considers abortion murder be required to perform an abortion?

This debate isn't about abortion. And hospitals aren't religious institutions. But there is such a thing as the Freedom of Conscious Act, where doctors can refuse to perform abortions. I say the easiest thing to do is not be a pro-lifer working at an abortion clinic.

But again this is about Gay marriage, not abortion. And as far as I'm concerned, that's like apples and oranges.

(2) Absolutely not, and I'm pretty sure nearly everyone would be against that -- including us gays. No one wants to force people to do things they don't want to do or to limit anyone else's rights. I want to have equal rights, I don't want to strip away someone else's rights (in this case, religious rights) in order to accomplish that.

I am glad you feel that way about the church but others don't. The one thing I disagree with is you have no less rights than me, I can't marry a man. I think this is a big lie that is told, we have the same rights.

Unfortunately it's no lie. This is why supporters of gay marriage often say they are in favor of "equal rights." Gays aren't struggling to have the right to wedding rings and a cake! This goes far beyond any cultural issue.

There are over 1,400 legal rights afforded to straight couples that gay couples do not have.

Here are some of the legal rights that married couples have and gays and lesbians are denied:

Joint parental rights of children
Joint adoption
Status as "next-of-kin" for hospital visits and medical decisions
Right to make a decision about the disposal of loved ones remains
Immigration and residency for partners from other countries
Crime victims recovery benefits
Domestic violence protection orders
Judicial protections and immunity
Automatic inheritance in the absence of a will
Public safety officers death benefits
Spousal veterans benefits
Social Security
Medicare
Joint filing of tax returns
Wrongful death benefits for surviving partner and children
Bereavement or sick leave to care for partner or children
Child support
Joint Insurance Plans
Tax credits including: Child tax credit, Hope and lifetime learning credits
Deferred Compensation for pension and IRAs
Estate and gift tax benefits
Welfare and public assistance
Joint housing for elderly
Credit protection
Medical care for survivors and dependents of certain veterans

These are just a few of the 1400 state and federal benefits that gays and lesbians are denied by not being able to marry. Most of these benefits cannot be privately arranged or contracted for within the legal system.

_____
SOURCE

Again, if someone works in something like the medical field then they can't refuse to give services. I remember a case at some point where a mental health professional refused to counsel an LGBT teenager based on their sexual orientation. That's simply unacceptable, especially if there are no alternative people to do the counseling.

However, with something like a wedding photographer... yeah, it's that company's right to say "No, we won't do it" if that's their prerogative. It's ridiculous for anyone to say to them "no, you MUST take the job."

In any case, in terms of hiring -- it depends on what you're hiring for. It's illegal to discriminate in the hiring process for sexual orientation already. No one is telling churches that they have to fill ranks with homosexuals, but anyone who is hiring for a job is obligated to follow nondiscrimination laws.

You seem very reasonable but there is a pastor in sweden that got in trouble for preaching against homosexuality (he faced jail time) and with the current bill in the UN those laws may be in the US soon.

First, I wouldn't want a homophobe to counsel any child who has been bullied because of their orientation. I'd be more upset if they were forced to do it! It might make the child even more depressed, having a counselor who believes that something is inherently wrong with you is not helpful.

Second, this is the United States, not Sweden. Also, please cite the source so I can read more about it.

[Board]

I am not sure why, as a christian, I can't refuse service and be honest why I am not taking the business. I do not feel that this should be a crime and is starting down the slippery slope.

No slippery slope here at all. It is discrimination whether or not you choose to hide behind religion as your cause for it. Business are not allowed to discriminate. Take it as a first step to educating discriminatory Christian business owners.

How many KKK members who own business will provide services to African-Americans? Probably not a whole lot... but they don't get sued because they do not vocalize their discrimination.

Also, it was not a crime for them to discriminate. This was a civil suit, no one spent any time in jail.

So you are ok with the christian school teaching what they want as long as they are privately funded? If so we agree.

I don't care what they teach kids as long as the tax payer is not footing the bill. Like Canada if you want to be lied to then pay for it yourself. Everyone should have that right. As for publicly funded programs then there should be more regulation.

read through this article for more details on how the law works...

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... d=91486340

[lastcallhall]

Extramarital sex, provided that it is between two consenting adults, is legal. And while I choose not to engage in it for my own moral reasons, and while you may not choose to engage it in for your own reasons (which probably are derived from the same evangelical culture), all of us may do so without any legal repercussions -- societal judgement probably, personal guilt perhaps, but legally it is fine.

The same cannot be said for same-sex marriage, at least not on a federal level.

The point I was making is that I do not look at the homosexual lifestyle as a worse sin nor am I singling out them as worse people than any of us. I wanted to show that from my point of view I have to stand against sin no matter where or what it is.

You may be appalled by what you believe is a "lifestyle," but that is not a logical reason to prohibit the rights of others who aren't bound by your sense of morality.

Why can't I hold my point of view? I think, and you can call me nuts, but the lifestyle is bad for kids and that churches will be forced to accept this lifestyle and teach my kids that it is normal and ok. I teach my children God's word and I will call sin, sin. I can't back a law that contradicts the Bible.

This debate isn't about abortion. And hospitals aren't religious institutions. But there is such a thing as the Freedom of Conscious Act, where doctors can refuse to perform abortions. I say the easiest thing to do is not be a pro-lifer working at an abortion clinic.

But again this is about Gay marriage, not abortion. And as far as I'm concerned, that's like apples and oranges.

I agree and I don't want to bring up abortion but my point is that nobody should be forced to accept business for something they feel is sin.

Unfortunately it's no lie. This is why supporters of gay marriage often say they are in favor of "equal rights." Gays aren't struggling to have the right to wedding rings and a cake! This goes far beyond any cultural issue.

There are over 1,400 legal rights afforded to straight couples that gay couples do not have.

Here are some of the legal rights that married couples have and gays and lesbians are denied:

Joint parental rights of children
Joint adoption
Status as "next-of-kin" for hospital visits and medical decisions
Right to make a decision about the disposal of loved ones remains
Immigration and residency for partners from other countries
Crime victims recovery benefits
Domestic violence protection orders
Judicial protections and immunity
Automatic inheritance in the absence of a will
Public safety officers death benefits
Spousal veterans benefits
Social Security
Medicare
Joint filing of tax returns
Wrongful death benefits for surviving partner and children
Bereavement or sick leave to care for partner or children
Child support
Joint Insurance Plans
Tax credits including: Child tax credit, Hope and lifetime learning credits
Deferred Compensation for pension and IRAs
Estate and gift tax benefits
Welfare and public assistance
Joint housing for elderly
Credit protection
Medical care for survivors and dependents of certain veterans

These are just a few of the 1400 state and federal benefits that gays and lesbians are denied by not being able to marry. Most of these benefits cannot be privately arranged or contracted for within the legal system.

_____
SOURCE

The survivor benefits just from a economic point of view can't happen because of our financial problems. Social security is bankrupt now let alone add millions more to the rolls. Many of the rights you have on there have to do with married people and that is where we disagree, I do not think they should be allowed to marry. I can't marry a man, so that "right" is not afforded to anyone.

Again, if someone works in something like the medical field then they can't refuse to give services. I remember a case at some point where a mental health professional refused to counsel an LGBT teenager based on their sexual orientation. That's simply unacceptable, especially if there are no alternative people to do the counseling.

First, I wouldn't want a homophobe to counsel any child who has been bullied because of their orientation. I'd be more upset if they were forced to do it! It might make the child even more depressed, having a counselor who believes that something is inherently wrong with you is not helpful.

Then we agree I would not want a God hating secular humanist to counsel my child.

Second, this is the United States, not Sweden. Also, please cite the source so I can read more about it.

Ake Green was the pastor and he was in trouble just for giving a sermon.

[Scotracer]

Extramarital sex, provided that it is between two consenting adults, is legal. And while I choose not to engage in it for my own moral reasons, and while you may not choose to engage it in for your own reasons (which probably are derived from the same evangelical culture), all of us may do so without any legal repercussions -- societal judgement probably, personal guilt perhaps, but legally it is fine.

The same cannot be said for same-sex marriage, at least not on a federal level.

The point I was making is that I do not look at the homosexual lifestyle as a worse sin nor am I singling out them as worse people than any of us. I wanted to show that from my point of view I have to stand against sin no matter where or what it is.

But because of the 1st Amendment, your religious beliefs can have no bearing on the laws within your nation. You might think it's sin...but it's ultimately irrelevant.

You may be appalled by what you believe is a "lifestyle," but that is not a logical reason to prohibit the rights of others who aren't bound by your sense of morality.

Why can't I hold my point of view? I think, and you can call me nuts, but the lifestyle is bad for kids and that churches will be forced to accept this lifestyle and teach my kids that it is normal and ok. I teach my children God's word and I will call sin, sin. I can't back a law that contradicts the Bible.

Again, that is tough. You have every right to not like it but since it's a religion-derived opinion, it cannot be a reason to stop people from doing it.

I agree and I don't want to bring up abortion but my point is that nobody should be forced to accept business for something they feel is sin.

Since your beliefs come from a book that you personally believe is inspired, they are necessarily arbitrary. What if someone else held a book as inspired but it claimed that being white was sin? Would they have every right to vote against the ability for white people to be free?

The fact of the matter is, allowing gay marriage doesn't effect you in any discernible way. If your only answer is that it somehow 'devalues' your own marriage...frankly, you need to grow up.

When you take religion out of the equation the gay marriage 'issue' falls to the way-side. Here in the UK we don't have full gay marriage but we have civil unions which offer as many rights as marriages do. People just don't care. It makes no difference to the vast straight majority in this country.

And I have to ask: if you believe in upholding extramarital sex and homosexual acts as sin...what about the other sins? Should children be punished for talking back to their parents in the way that is prescribed in the OT? Or should people who eat shellfish be punished? I mean...let's get some consistency here. I've never understood why the Christian fundamentalists always pick on the ones that involve sex...it's like they're embarrassed to be animals.

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP:

The referenced article sounds like an impassioned plea along the lines of, "C'mon guys, we lost out on all the other stuff we were adamantly opposed to, can't we just have this one deal here". It is presented with no references to confirmatory data or studies.

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

I do not lament the oppressor's fear. Given that so many (majority? vast majority?) Christians seek to have the government restrict from others what they reserve for themselves, I propose they have only themselves to blame for their persecution complex.

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?

I'm unaware of any legislation that proposes to force Christians to stop discriminating against their fellow human beings.

That said, I'd be all for the notion that Christians would be "forced", through shame, to quit trying to legislate their unproven beliefs onto others.

[Abraxas]

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.

Good. I find most things conservatives consider to be the such and such agenda to be beneficial to society and it is nice to see some of them gaining ground.

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?

Because you enjoy substituting your judgment and religious beliefs for those of others against their will? Let's read on and find out.

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.

Traditional marriage? You mean a property arrangement by which a father sells his daughter to a suitor? Or polygamy? Or banning marriage between different religions or ethnic groups or skin colors? "Traditional marriage" is a misnomer, the definition of marriage has evolved constantly over time and varied widely from place to place.

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?

Sure, but the problem is you don't consider the outcome, you tilt at windmills that only exist on the Conservative Christian Nightmarescape of complete societal breakdown and an angry God. If we review what will actually happen, the same people who are gay now will be gay then, they will just be married. Canada did not sink into the sea when they legalized it, Massachusetts did not undergo spontaneous societal collapse, simply put, nothing bad happened.

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.

Not even remotely relevant to same sex marriage, not even considering the truth of the statement.

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.

Not remotely relevant to same sex marriage and the statement is disingenuous at best.

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.

Equally irrelevant and even less supported than the above.

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.

Still irrelevant and I note for the fourth series of assertions in a row, no source is given.

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.

Post hoc fallacy, also, red herring, also, unsupported assertion.

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.

Except not. I do like how he quietly asserts that welfare is against the bible; priceless.

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.

I wasn't aware people needed convincing freedom and equality were 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.

Generally speaking one is radical if one believes they should force their religious and cultural views on an entire nation even though other people engaging in the behavior you want to criminalize has no effect on you whatsoever.

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).

Seems like in both cases discriminating is bad. Seems fine to me. I don't think you would be complaining if the grounds that landed them before the Human Rights Commission were for refusing service because of the color of their skin, and likewise having suppliers threatening to pull support because of racial discrimination. Same thing here.

If religious liberty is lost in America, we will cease to be the nation our Founders intended us to be.

Then stop fighting against religious liberty. Let people of different religious views, such as people who believe God recognizes their union with a same sex spouse. Please stop opposing religious liberty in the name of religious liberty.

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.

I do. He was rather explicit that your beliefs about religion should not end up as a law with which to harm those who do not.

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.

Indeed, but thankfully the "gay agenda" is working hard to correct that.

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

That explains it.

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

I'd rather not.

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?

No.

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?

No. Churches have legally been allowed to discriminate against protected classes, such as women, without consequence. I don't see this changing.

[Darias]

Extramarital sex, provided that it is between two consenting adults, is legal. And while I choose not to engage in it for my own moral reasons, and while you may not choose to engage it in for your own reasons (which probably are derived from the same evangelical culture), all of us may do so without any legal repercussions -- societal judgement probably, personal guilt perhaps, but legally it is fine.

The same cannot be said for same-sex marriage, at least not on a federal level.

The point I was making is that I do not look at the homosexual lifestyle as a worse sin nor am I singling out them as worse people than any of us. I wanted to show that from my point of view I have to stand against sin no matter where or what it is.

Fair enough.

You may be appalled by what you believe is a "lifestyle," but that is not a logical reason to prohibit the rights of others who aren't bound by your sense of morality.

Why can't I hold my point of view? I think, and you can call me nuts, but the lifestyle is bad for kids and that churches will be forced to accept this lifestyle and teach my kids that it is normal and ok. I teach my children God's word and I will call sin, sin. I can't back a law that contradicts the Bible.

No one is saying you can't hold your views. Except I believe it is false to assume that churches will be forced to promote tolerance and or acceptance of homosexuals and their loved-ones -- at least in this country. Case-in-point, Westboro Baptist. They are one of the more extreme, and they have no fear of their rights to preach being taken away from them. They're even given the freedom to protest funerals, so long as they stay a certain distance away from the grieving.

It is your right to teach your kids what you believe to be true, and no one can take that right away from you.

However, I think it is dishonest to vote out the rights of other Americans for an exaggerated, immaterial fear that one's own rights will be at risk.

Unfortunately it's no lie. This is why supporters of gay marriage often say they are in favor of "equal rights." Gays aren't struggling to have the right to wedding rings and a cake! This goes far beyond any cultural issue.

There are over 1,400 legal rights afforded to straight couples that gay couples do not have.

Here are some of the legal rights that married couples have and gays and lesbians are denied:

Joint parental rights of children
Joint adoption
Status as "next-of-kin" for hospital visits and medical decisions
Right to make a decision about the disposal of loved ones remains
Immigration and residency for partners from other countries
Crime victims recovery benefits
Domestic violence protection orders
Judicial protections and immunity
Automatic inheritance in the absence of a will
Public safety officers death benefits
Spousal veterans benefits
Social Security
Medicare
Joint filing of tax returns
Wrongful death benefits for surviving partner and children
Bereavement or sick leave to care for partner or children
Child support
Joint Insurance Plans
Tax credits including: Child tax credit, Hope and lifetime learning credits
Deferred Compensation for pension and IRAs
Estate and gift tax benefits
Welfare and public assistance
Joint housing for elderly
Credit protection
Medical care for survivors and dependents of certain veterans

These are just a few of the 1400 state and federal benefits that gays and lesbians are denied by not being able to marry. Most of these benefits cannot be privately arranged or contracted for within the legal system.

_____
SOURCE

The survivor benefits just from a economic point of view can't happen because of our financial problems. Social security is bankrupt now let alone add millions more to the rolls. Many of the rights you have on there have to do with married people and that is where we disagree, I do not think they should be allowed to marry. I can't marry a man, so that "right" is not afforded to anyone.

No one is saying there aren't any problems with social security. But why are you more deserving of it than other Americans? I'd rather see an America where every American gets their fair share of crappy social security, than seeing all the benefits go to the inhabitants of the Bible belt.

Second, you have no desire to marry a man. So? Neither do I, but I still see a problem. It's a very poor argument. It's like saying "I'm not Black" in response to an argument about segregation.

Actually your response illustrates the problem at hand. You are straight, you get all the rights and privileges that come with that. You aren't gay, so you don't care that gays don't have the right to visit their loved ones in hospitals across state lines, or adopt children, etc. And you take this stance all because of the fear that you have that somehow affording the same rights to gays that you have would make it illegal to voice your disgust with them.

That logic doesn't follow. Christians have no problem making fiery sermons about alcohol and pornography -- both of which are for the most part legal. Christians have no problem in condemning followers of other religions to hell -- and yet non-Christian religions have the right to worship however they want, regardless of your dislike of such.

The legalization of such things does not prevent you from fomenting your disgust or teaching your children than all of the above is wrong and abominable. And you haven't been hauled off to jail yet have you? No one wants that. We have a thing called "freedom of speech" and it applies to pretty much anything. So don't worry.

Again, if someone works in something like the medical field then they can't refuse to give services. I remember a case at some point where a mental health professional refused to counsel an LGBT teenager based on their sexual orientation. That's simply unacceptable, especially if there are no alternative people to do the counseling.

First, I wouldn't want a homophobe to counsel any child who has been bullied because of their orientation. I'd be more upset if they were forced to do it! It might make the child even more depressed, having a counselor who believes that something is inherently wrong with you is not helpful.

Then we agree I would not want a God hating secular humanist to counsel my child.

Right. The only difference is, gay children have been committing suicide because of bullying as well as because of religious teaching. Sunday-school kids haven't been jumping off bridges because of secular counselors, friends, and family. The same cannot be said for homosexual youth. Society's rejection of them is just too much, and I wouldn't want a counselor ignorant of this reality to impose even more mental and emotional distress onto one of these kids.

Second, this is the United States, not Sweden. Also, please cite the source so I can read more about it.

Ake Green was the pastor and he was in trouble just for giving a sermon.

Oh you mean the guy who was found "not guilty?". There's a win for free-speech. As long as he doesn't directly cause violence, more power to him.

[lastcallhall]

But because of the 1st Amendment, your religious beliefs can have no bearing on the laws within your nation. You might think it's sin...but it's ultimately irrelevant.

But because of the first amendment I can vote how I want based on whatever reason I want. It does not say I can't use the Bible to vote. There are not many people, in my opinion, that do not use their religion or morals to vote or how they vote.

Again, that is tough. You have every right to not like it but since it's a religion-derived opinion, it cannot be a reason to stop people from doing it.

Why should I support it? Jesus said if I deny him before men he will deny me before God, again what is acceptable to base my vote on?

Since your beliefs come from a book that you personally believe is inspired, they are necessarily arbitrary. What if someone else held a book as inspired but it claimed that being white was sin? Would they have every right to vote against the ability for white people to be free?

They would have that right and I guess if there were enough people that believed that it may become law. I think the KKK already uses this way to vote.

The fact of the matter is, allowing gay marriage doesn't effect you in any discernible way. If your only answer is that it somehow 'devalues' your own marriage...frankly, you need to grow up.

I believe it will become a way for people to sue the church out of business. Also my child will be taught in school it is normal and socially acceptable, which I believe it is not. I will send my child to a private school but how about people who can't? That is my beef. Also how can we pay survivor benefits out of social security when we can't afford the people on the program now?

And I have to ask: if you believe in upholding extramarital sex and homosexual acts as sin...what about the other sins? Should children be punished for talking back to their parents in the way that is prescribed in the OT? Or should people who eat shellfish be punished? I mean...let's get some consistency here. I've never understood why the Christian fundamentalists always pick on the ones that involve sex...it's like they're embarrassed to be animals.

You are getting into old testament law vs new testament grace, this is not the thread for it but in short we do not punish sin like we did in the old testament because Jesus paid the price on the cross. It does not mean you let sin run wild without at least putting in your 2 cents.

[lastcallhall]

I do not lament the oppressor's fear. Given that so many (majority? vast majority?) Christians seek to have the government restrict from others what they reserve for themselves, I propose they have only themselves to blame for their persecution complex.

Is the story of the people in New Mexico not proof of people forcing christians to accept a lifestyle that we believe is sin?

I'm unaware of any legislation that proposes to force Christians to stop discriminating against their fellow human beings.

That said, I'd be all for the notion that Christians would be "forced", through shame, to quit trying to legislate their unproven beliefs onto others.

Why can't we vote the way we wish? How decides what laws have too much religion behind them?

[micatala]

I do not lament the oppressor's fear. Given that so many (majority? vast majority?) Christians seek to have the government restrict from others what they reserve for themselves, I propose they have only themselves to blame for their persecution complex.

Is the story of the people in New Mexico not proof of people forcing christians to accept a lifestyle that we believe is sin?

Let me ask, would it be OK for this business to discriminate against divorced people? Would it be OK, say if they were Jewish, to refuse to deal with people who ate shellfish or worked on the Sabbath? Could they discriminate against people who have premarital sex, or who violate any of the first four Biblical commandments?

I don't see how you can allow public businesses to enforce their notion of sin on those they deal with either as employees or customers. Once you do that, you open all kinds of cans of worms. That this comes up with respect to gay issues indicates to me people are being very selective in their thinking.

I'm unaware of any legislation that proposes to force Christians to stop discriminating against their fellow human beings.

That said, I'd be all for the notion that Christians would be "forced", through shame, to quit trying to legislate their unproven beliefs onto others.

Why can't we vote the way we wish? How decides what laws have too much religion behind them?

You can vote whichever way you wish for whatever reason you wish.

However, if a majority through the ballot box forces an unconstitutional law onto the books, it is incumbent on the legislatures, courts, and other governmental bodies to overturn such laws. Typically it is the courts that handle this.

Those who oppose laws that they feel are unconstitutional, like bans on gay marriage, are free to make their case in the realm of public discussion, lobby legislatures, and sue in order to seek remedy. This is what happened in the 1960's with respect to civil rights.


It is not a perfect system, and certainly we have cases in our history where, in retrospect, nearly everyone agrees people had their rights violated for many years, even decades. However, consider that our founding documents speak of "inalienable rights." To me, this means these rights exist in the abstract, regardless of whether they are currently recognized in the law.

I would submit the freedom to marry is one of these rights. Despite no mention of marriage existing in the constitution, it has repeatedly been ruled by SCOTUS and lower courts as a "basic civil right." This is based on the inalienable right to pursue happiness mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. Courst have ruled this right cannot be denied to convicted felons, even if they are in prison, deadbeat dads, even in an effort to make them comply with court-ordered child support payments, or those who have been divorced, no matter how many times.




I would submit that none of the reasons for banning gay marriage pointed to in the article would hold up in any reasonable court.

One of the main reasons for that is that the 14th amendment guarantees equal protecion under the law. The types of things mentioned in that article would never be applied to other groups of individuals, and so they should be considered irrelevant with respect to gays.