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?

[Lux]

All statistics relating to the quality of homosexuals' life are irrelevant to this debate... and to any political debate for that matter, unless anyone here can prove that, contrary to the current consensus of the scientific community, sexual orientation is a choice. Or at least that most human beings can be happy and fulfilled without romantic relationships and/or sex.

[micatala]

All statistics relating to the quality of homosexuals' life are irrelevant to this debate... and to any political debate for that matter, unless anyone here can prove that, contrary to the current consensus of the scientific community, sexual orientation is a choice. Or at least that most human beings can be happy and fulfilled without romantic relationships and/or sex.

I would disagree. Whether homosexuality is a choice or not should not be relevant to whether gays are allowed to marry or any other civil rights issue with respect go gays.

I would agree the preponderance of evidence shows sexual orientation for most people (those not largely "bi") is not a choice, but essentially immutable.

I would agree the statistics are irrelevant unless we apply such statistics to other groups to make similar kinds of legal distinctions.

Can anyone come up with a case, for example, where we legally limit a particular groups actions or fail to recognize certain rights for individuals in that group because that group has a statistically higher rate of promiscuity, venereal disease, divorce rate, etc.?

[lastcallhall]

Hate doesn't need to be expressed by words alone. Actions speak much louder. When you attempt to implement government regulations which deny human rights to a portion of the population, you are exhibiting hate towards that group.

It's one thing to disagree, it's quite another to implement forced repression. Forced repression, and denial of human rights equivocates directly to hate.

I guess we just disagree on the definition of hate.

NOT for their opinions, but for their actions! You may hold whatever opinions you wish. What you can't do is force those opinions on others; you don't have that right.

You are forcing your opinion on people that if they do not photograph a gay wedding that they will get sued and possibly put out of business. You may think that is a good thing but that is what I call forcing your belief on someone.

Isn't that simple human decency? Not preventing others from enjoying the same rights that you enjoy? I don't get it, how is this concept so hard for you to understand? Equality? Fairness? Equal rights? Are these concepts so alien to Christianity?

I have never said I care how a person lives their daily life, my problem is voting for something that would legalize a sinful lifestyle. You may not agree but I believe the Bible to be 100% true and as such I will not throw it to the side to gain points with the PC crowd. What I think you don't understand is as a christian I won't disobey the Bible no matter what is currently socially acceptable.

[Lux]

I would disagree. Whether homosexuality is a choice or not should not be relevant to whether gays are allowed to marry or any other civil rights issue with respect go gays.

I agree with this and didn't mean to imply the contrary. As far as I can tell, whether homosexuality is a choice or not is irrelevant to the issue of marriage. If it could be proven that homosexuality is both unhealthy and a choice, then the homosexual life quality would become relevant to some debates. However, this isn't one of them.

[Darias]

Here's what I honestly think about the nature of this debate:


There are Christians who oppose gay marriage because they think homosexuals as the worst of all sinners, worthy of death, etc. etc...

Then there are Christians who are willing to consider some of the arguments of supporters of equal rights, Christians who don't hate homosexuals, but who are still against gay marriage nonetheless etc.

My post here concerns the latter.


And the facts regarding the inequality of LGBT peoples in America, in the end, don't matter.

No matter how heart tugging the stories are to fundamentalists and liberals (religious and non-religious) concerning the suicides of kids, regardless of the facts that homosexuals don't have access to the 1,400 some-odd rights already afforded to heterosexuals (even in civil unions), despite the stories of gays (even religious gays) who have struggled with their identities and acceptance....

regardless of all of this...

No argument, no story, no amount of logic or reasoning will ever change a person's mind -- so long as they are convinced of the following:

1. That the orientation is a sin.
2. That same-sex relationships are a sin.
3. That this sin is unique and worse than other sins.
4. That this sin is "a lifestyle" and others are not.
5. That this sin makes it impossible for one to be saved if gay.
6. That homosexuality is condemned throughout the Bible
7. That the context of its condemnation in relation to neighboring verses ("stone disobedient children," "cover and silence your wives in church") is irrelevant because such verses are culturally unacceptable today.
8. That verses are only inerrant commands from God if they condemn homosexuality; other sinners are tolerable. Christians can divorce, remarry, and lead a church (adultery/unrepentant adulterous lifestyle).
9. That questioning such doctrines would be like betraying the Lord.
10. That such denial or betrayal would result in hell/ and or make Jesus cry.



So long as they continue to feed their own personal convictions and revulsions about homosexuality into fundamentalist interpretations of de-contextualized passages which are believed to be the perfect and inerrant word of God -- simultaneously ignoring surrounding passages, passing them off as culturally irrelevant/"old covenant" (despite some being in the New Testament, i.e., cover and silence your wives in church). And as long as such teachings are never questioned. And as long as the phobia is never eased -- only inflamed by irrational and illogical slippery-slope, doomageddon preaching. And so long as they vote with all that in mind, in addition to the incentive of believing that it is their divinely commanded duty to suppress non-Christian/"Satanic" practices/cultures/religions -- and that not voting would make Jesus disown them before men after death....

And so long if this thinking prevails in America:

AIDS is not just God's punishment for homosexuals; it is God's punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals
_____
SOURCE

... then there won't be any change... and LGBT people's will continue to be second-class citizens as far as equal-rights are concerned. As far as culture goes, they will continue to be pariahs in many parts of the country.

And not only will there not be any change...

... so long as people continue to believe that their personal disgust is in lock-step with God's will, no amount of debate will ever change their minds.

Therefore this whole debate will forever remain pointless -- my only hope is that some of the reasoning and facts here will, by chance, soften a few hearts and challenge a few minds.

But if you guys think for one second that any of our passionate reasoning and documented facts will convince anyone already set in their doctrinal ways -- I am sorry to disappoint...

[lastcallhall]

No argument, no story, no amount of logic or reasoning will ever change a person's mind -- so long as they are convinced of the following:

1. That the orientation is a sin.

I disagree here that being gay is not in itself a sin. Being an alcoholic in itself is not a sin.

2. That same-sex relationships are a sin.

Yes that is what is considered the sin.

3. That this sin is unique and worse than other sins.

Where have I or anyone in this thread called the homosexual lifestyle a worse sin than any other sin? I don't believe that for 1 second. I think the theft of 1 pencil is the same level of sin in God's eye as the homosexual lifestyle. Both need to be repented for.

4. That this sin is "a lifestyle" and others are not.

You are right in the sense that a pastor that cheats on his wife is not an open sin like the homosexual lifestyle. Most all sins are done in secret so in a way the homosexual lifestyle is a more in your face sin (to christians)

5. That this sin makes it impossible for one to be saved if gay.

I think any sin that is unrepented will keep you from seeing the glory of God and heaven, the homosexual lifestyle is no different

6. That homosexuality is condemned throughout the Bible

I agree

7. That the context of its condemnation in relation to neighboring verses ("stone disobedient children," "cover and silence your wives in church") is irrelevant because such verses are culturally unacceptable today.

I think you are using an argument that is not accurate. Any sin in our church would be condemned if it was known and expected to be repented of. The difference with the homosexual lifestyle is the person does not usually agree that it is a sinful lifestyle and does not want to repent. That is where I see the difference is most sinners want to repent and work at it but if you are unwilling it would not be possible to have that person come to church each week.

8. That verses are only inerrant commands from God if they condemn homosexuality; other sinners are tolerable. Christians can divorce, remarry, and lead a church (adultery/unrepentant adulterous lifestyle).

There are no sins we tolerate, please show me one I have said is ok. If a pastor, like Ted Haggard, is found to be in sin he must resign because you can't lead a church and be living in sin. No person who claims to be a christian should divorce his wife for no reason.

9. That questioning such doctrines would be like betraying the Lord.
10. That such denial or betrayal would result in hell/ and or make Jesus cry.

You are right I will not go against what the Bible teaches to be PC.

And not only will there not be any change...

... so long as people continue to believe that their personal disgust is in lock-step with God's will, no amount of debate will ever change their minds.

God says he is the same and does not change so if I base my opinion on the Bible you are correct that sin will be sin 10,000 years from now no matter what happens.

[East of Eden]

If you compare "religious" countries with the relatively FEW "Atheist" countries however, the religious ones are responsible for the vast majority of war and destruction on the planet,

Only if you ignore the 100,000,000 victims of atheistic Communism. See 'The Black Book of Communism'.

[East of Eden]

Yes, slavery, an institution justified on biblical grounds in the first place.

Slavery is not unique to Christianity, it is part of the human condition. What is unique is that Christianity ended slavery. Slavery is still prevalent in Islam.

Slavery and the subsequent racism which followed existed in spades in what is known as the Bible Belt; which was and still is the most Christian part of the country.

Yes, Christians wrongly supported segregation when they ignored the Golden Rule and the fact we are all made in God's image. Christians today make a similar mistake when they ignore what God says about homosexual activity.

[East of Eden]

Gee, I wonder if that has anything to do with hateful people like you?

Stop the namecalling, will you? This is from a previous post showing that in the Netherlands (about as gay-friendly a place you will find), suicide rates are still high, which kind of blows your theory.


"Multiple studies have identified high rates of psychiatric illness, including depression, drug abuse and suicide attempts, among selfprofessed gays and lesbians.74 Some proponents of GLB rights have used these findings to conclude that mental illness is induced by other people's unwillingness to accept same-sex attraction and behavior as normal. They point to homophobia, effectively defined as any opposition to or critique of gay sex, as the cause for the higher rates of psychiatric illness, especially among gay youth.75 Although homophobia must be considered as a potential cause for the increase in mental health problems, the medical literature suggests other conclusions.

An extensive study in the Netherlands undermines the assumption that homophobia is the cause of increased psychiatric illness among gays and lesbians. The Dutch have been considerably more accepting of same-sex relationships than other Western countries " in fact, same-sex couples now have the legal right to marry in the Netherlands.76 So a high rate of psychiatric disease associated with homosexual behavior in the Netherlands means that the psychiatric disease cannot so easily be attributed to social rejection and homophobia.

The Dutch study, published in the Archives of General Psychiatry, did indeed find a high rate of psychiatric disease associated with same-sex sex.77 Compared to controls who had no homosexual experience in the 12 months prior to the interview, males who had any homosexual contact within that time period were much more likely to experience major depression, bipolar disorder, panic disorder, agoraphobia and obsessive compulsive disorder. Females with any homosexual contact within the previous 12 months were more often diagnosed with major depression, social phobia or alcohol dependence. In fact, those with a history of homosexual contact had higher rates of nearly all psychiatric pathologies measured in the study.78 The researchers found "that homosexuality is not only associated with mental health problems during adolescence and early adulthood, as has been suggested, but also in later life."79 Researchers actually fear that methodological features of "the study might underestimate the differences between homosexual and heterosexual people."80

The Dutch researchers concluded, "this study offers evidence that homosexuality is associated with a higher prevalence of psychiatric disorders. The outcomes are in line with findings from earlier studies in which less rigorous designs have been employed."81 The researchers offered no opinion as to whether homosexual behavior causes psychiatric disorders, or whether it is the result of psychiatric disorders."


Here's a question for you: If a Christian on this forum committed suicide after reading your anti-Christian rants, would it be your fault?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 306:

...Christians today make a similar mistake when they ignore what God says about homosexual activity.

If only Christians could show their god has spoken on the issue.

Instead we typically get such as, "I believe God said to hate on homosexuals, and I agree we oughta".