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?

[Abraxas]

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?

Nobody is telling you to like it or accept it, the only requirement at issue there is that you not act in a discriminatory fashion with a business. This is no different than when restaraunts wouldn't let african americans eat in them during segregation; it is discrimination and it is illegal.

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?

Simple, does the law have a legitimate secular purpose. In this case the one and only reason for supporting bans on gay marriage are religious and thus unconstitutional.

EDIT: Tag error.

[lastcallhall]

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.

Right now I agree with you 100%, Westboro can spit out any sort of hatred they wish and there is nothing anyone can do. My concern, and I feel it is well founded, is if gay marriage becomes a federal law it will become a protected group and then churches will be forced to recognize it as a marriage.

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.

I don't think it is dishonest at all, in fact the Bible commands me to vote the Bible as Jesus said if I deny him before men he will deny me before the father. How should I vote and what can I base my vote on?

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.

I won't get into my view on social security but how can you deny all the "sister wives" survivor benefits? I don't think you can give gays all the rights and not polygamists

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.

Not the same thing, I believe homosexuality is a lifestyle being black is a race. Totally different as you can choose to not live the homosexual lifestyle. Blacks could not vote when whites could. I will again use the fact nobody can marry someone of the same sex so it is not singling out a race.

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.

Why can't they visit anyone they wish in the hospital? If you want a law to let anyone stay in a hospital room all night or help with decisions I am all for it. I don't think it is healthy for a child to be with two people that are the same sex.

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.

I don't want anyone to kill themselves but I don't think that is a christian counselors fault if a child does.

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.

Yes he finally was, thank God. It is a bad sign that he would even have to defend himself in court.

[Scotracer]

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.

Well if the only justification you have for something being illegal is that your religion says that that it's somehow bad...well, then it shouldn't be a law. It'd be unconstitutional. What if someone else's religion condones it? Do we go on the majority? No, not in a constitutional democracy. Certainly not the US which stops the oppression of the minority.

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?

And what about loving thy neighbour or loving thy 'enemy'?

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.

And you don't think this is insane? This is why you need a constitution.

For example, in the UK, the religious are pretty much a minority now (it's in the borderline transition period). If, for instance, someone was to create a poll on the abolition of churches, period, and the majority say 'Yeah, let's get rid of them'...what say you? You just accept it?

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?

You needn't force any religious institution to marry two gay people. In the UK we don't have that. If the couple want to get married in a church, they go talk to the minister/priest and see if they will let them. If not...get one in a civil environment.

When I was at school (not THAT long ago) we were just taught that some people are gay. That's it. What on earth is wrong with that? Should keep people totally ignorant of homosexuality? That is to the detriment of all society (ignorance breeds hatred) and to the detriment of those who are homosexual but aren't old enough to fully understand it yet. You were lucky to grow up as a heterosexual. You had it easy. I know personally how hard it is to come to terms with a sexuality that the majority of society thinks is weird. I can't even imagine how hard it is for kids in the USA where hatred is even higher and education even poorer.

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.

Jesus said virtually nothing on the topic of sexuality...so why is that not covered under 'grace'? And didn't Jesus say he came not to abolish the law, but to enforce it?

[lastcallhall]

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?

If as a business you want to turn away business for any reason I say go ahead. You risk loosing customers and getting shut down if others disagree with what you did. The problem with other sin is how can you tell if someone is having premarital sex or an adulterer unless you know them? I see your point but being gay is generally a sin that is always out in the open and you are forced to accept or reject it. Most other sin is done in secret.

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.

I agree totally, all you can do is give your opinion and try to get laws passed. If you don't like them go to the courts and see if they agree with you.

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.

I think you lay out a great argument but I still don't think that this is a civil right as nobody is allowed to marry someone of the same sex.

[Abraxas]

I think you lay out a great argument but I still don't think that this is a civil right as nobody is allowed to marry someone of the same sex.

Fair enough. For the moment, let's accept that is accurate.

Lets put a new spin on it then. Prohibitions against same sex marriage discriminate against women as men are allowed to marry women but women are not. Prohibitions against same sex marriage discriminate against men as women are allowed to marry men but men are not. As such, banning same sex marriage is not merely gender discrimination, and thus illegal, it is double gender discrimination and thus illegal.

[Wyvern]

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?

Nowhere does it say you have to accept it, you just can't discriminate against homosexuals because your religion says so.

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?

The final arbiter is the supreme court if necessary. I really need to say that the idea that you can legislate morality is simply wrong minded. If your version of what is moral is as superior as you seem to think live it in the real world demonstrate its superiority and desirability. If you can do this people will flock to your morally superior lifestyle, instead what we get is the people that are most vocal promoting the christian lifestyle seem to always end up being exposed as adulterers, drug abusers, pedophiles or closeted homosexuals.

[Meow Mix]

What a person really is deep inside becomes apparent when they wish and dream for the oppression of another people that aren't harming them.

[lastcallhall]

What a person really is deep inside becomes apparent when they wish and dream for the oppression of another people that aren't harming them.

I am not sure how you know what is in my heart. Most people I know and I would hope many people who even disagree with my views on this site would call me a hateful person. I try to love on everyone and hold no hate in my heart. I am sorry if you feel that way but I can't leave my beliefs at the door even if it offends people. I am not better than you nor do I think I am, I am a sinner in need of God's amazing grace as much as anyone. I know this is a tactic used to demonize Bible believing christians and if you feel that way it is your right.

[lastcallhall]

Nobody is telling you to like it or accept it, the only requirement at issue there is that you not act in a discriminatory fashion with a business. This is no different than when restaraunts wouldn't let african americans eat in them during segregation; it is discrimination and it is illegal.

I see your point but you don't see any instance where a business owner can turn away business?

Simple, does the law have a legitimate secular purpose. In this case the one and only reason for supporting bans on gay marriage are religious and thus unconstitutional.

Who decides this tho? I feel the murder laws are based on God's law as well.

[Meow Mix]

I am not sure how you know what is in my heart. Most people I know and I would hope many people who even disagree with my views on this site would call me a hateful person. I try to love on everyone and hold no hate in my heart. I am sorry if you feel that way but I can't leave my beliefs at the door even if it offends people. I am not better than you nor do I think I am, I am a sinner in need of God's amazing grace as much as anyone. I know this is a tactic used to demonize Bible believing christians and if you feel that way it is your right.

I don't think you're hateful. You're a stand-up guy who is arguing for what he believes. It just so happens to be that what you believe would deprive me of equal rights. It's tragic. There are those who believe rights should be equal and those who don't -- some who even go to the point where they will concoct arguments that rights really are equal. ("Neither of us can marry the same sex" is this type of "argument.")

This is all that I meant. It becomes apparent when someone is not one who values others' liberties over their own agenda when they hope and wish for the oppression of others in order to satisfy their personal bias -- even if the others aren't causing them harm. That isn't hateful, it's just ignorant. That's only my opinion -- I'm not trying to insult you. I'm sure you're a great guy. It just so happens that your ideals would oppress me if given the power, and that's tragic and horrible.

I hope that you never find yourself in a situation where you're unable to have the same rights as other people or to enjoy the same things with the person who utterly completes you -- the love of your life, your "soulmate" -- just because other people don't like it. I truly hope that never happens to you, and I truly hope you appreciate your ability to enjoy what your ideology denies to me. Please don't ruin that you get to enjoy that since there are some of us who can't.

"Pure democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner." Hopefully we sheep will have the power to overturn oppressive ideology so that we can enjoy freedom in the near future. I'd fight for that, and I'd fight against anyone turning around and oppressing the original oppressors in turn.