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?

[micatala]

Obviously the First Amendment protects your right to your religious views.

It also prevents you from imposing those views on others, which is what bans on gay marriage do, unless someone can find a legitimate secular purpose for those bans.

Nonsense, you want to remove religious people from the public square. We're not going.

You are stating an untruth.

Where did I say or even imply I want to remove religious people from the public square? This does not even make sense, given that I am a religious person expressing myself in a 'public square.'

I said laws should not be enacted that enforce religious ideas on the population.

This does not equate to saying that religious people are not allowed to express their views in the public square.




Try again, and next time please avoid blatantly distorting my position by falsely claiming I said something I did not.

Where are these secular purposes?

Although I reject your theory that religious motives are inadmissable at the voting booth, a secular purpose is that children are best raised with a mother and father.

Again, you are mistating my position. Religious motivations are fine. One can argue for a law that has a legitimate secular purpose because of one's religious motivation, just like MLK did.


Now, I will grant the the goal of having children raised by a mother and father is a secular purpose. I even agree that it is generally better, and statistics I think back this up, that children are on average better off being raised by their biological parents.

But there is still the equal protection concept.

If we are to ban gay marriage because it would mean some children do not get raised by their biological parents then we should ban single-parenting. We should also probably ban foster parenting and step parenting.


Statistics do not show that children raised by two same-sex parents are worse off on average by most measures than other children. Statistics do show children raised by single-parents are worse off. I believe statistics show that children raised by a step parent are at higher risk of a number of harms, which would apply to some same-sex households, but applies to a lot more heterosexual households.


So, I allow you have provided a secular purpose. The problem is it is not a secular purpose that applies only to banning gay marriage so it runs afould of treating people equally under the law.



It is also a reason that, given precedents, would be found less relevant than defending individual freedoms.

Recall that in Turner v. Safely (I believe that is the right case) the state cannot prevent a dead beat dad from marrying someone else, even to get him to comply with the child support law.


Anything else?

[micatala]

What I am not okay with is when religious people in public office wish to impose their religious views on others by creating an unconstitutional federal law which strips over 1,400 rights from an entire group of Americans.

And I am of course talking about DOMA. And aside from vague decontextualized scriptures from Leviticus and a few words from Paul of Tarsus -- there is absolutely no secular or objective reasoning for this bill. It is wholly religious in nature. Just because non-Christian conservatives agree with the bill, it doesn't make it non-religious, because it is.

It isn't unconstitutional, unless you know of a SCOTUS decision I missed.

Well, if you are going to bring this up again, perhaps you should go back to this thread and pick up the challenge.


I already addressed some of the fallacies implicit in this statement there. If you want to go around the circle again here, that is fine as well.


Following your logic, racial discrimination against blacks was not unconstitutional until such time as SCOTUS actually upheld the rights of African-Americans,


Your logic also seems to question the notion of 'inalienable rights.' If the only rights we have are those explicitly granted in the Constitution or inferred from the COnstitution through court rulings, then rights in the abstract, rights that some of us who are Christian believe are granted by the Creator, don't exist.




In any political debate, even one destined for SCOTUS, the case is made in the public realm that the law is or is not constitutional. If you think that debate is irrelevant, then as I said in the other thread, why are you arguing the point?

[East of Eden]

Well, if you are going to bring this up again, perhaps you should go back to this thread and pick up the challenge.


I already addressed some of the fallacies implicit in this statement there. If you want to go around the circle again here, that is fine as well.

Yes, you gave me your opinions, but there is NO SCOTUS decision declaring persons with same-sex feelings have the right to marry.

Following your logic, racial discrimination against blacks was not unconstitutional until such time as SCOTUS actually upheld the rights of African-Americans,

As I've said before, you can't compare race with non-immutable same-sex feelings.

Your logic also seems to question the notion of 'inalienable rights.' If the only rights we have are those explicitly granted in the Constitution or inferred from the COnstitution through court rulings, then rights in the abstract, rights that some of us who are Christian believe are granted by the Creator, don't exist.

You can argue Natural Law, which further goes against your position.

[East of Eden]

Almost every GOP presidential candidate supports a constitutional amendment defining marriage as "straights only," thus over-riding state's definitions. If it was in the Constitution it would be unconstitutional because it would violate equal rights, which are afforded to all citizens.

The Constitution is silent on marriage, which leaves it up to the people, especially through referendums. Gay marriage should not be imposed through a nine-persom judicial dictatorship.

Well I don't agree with those "many places" either. My point is, alcohol consumption isn't illegal for people who are of age.

But buying it, or buying it on Sunday, is illegal in certain areas.

It is not an issue today. Christians aren't voting for the "Defense of Sobriety" bill that would outlaw the sale and consumption of alcohol for other Americans, including Christians, who want to drink responsibly. And Christians aren't voting for it's outlaw even though many denominations believe drinking is a sin, even occasional drinking.

Yet lots of Christians are voting in "Defense of Marriage" aka, making the government not recognize marriages between same-sex couples, and thus stripping homosexuals of 1400 rights currently afforded to heterosexuals.

How can you strip people of rights they have never had through 5,000 years of human history?

I just don't understand why Christians aren't treating homosexuality like they would alcohol? Teach it's a sin if you must, but don't make Levitical law the law of the land. They don't impose their morality on society by enforcing virginity and sobriety, so why do they want to force gay people from being married?

You're bringing up lots of issues here. I will say someone getting drunk is potentially only screwing up themselves, a gay married couple are negatively impacting children with the lack of a mother and father.

On what logical basis should homosexual Americans not be able to love each other, get married, have their marriage recognized in all states, and possess the same 1400 legal rights that heterosexual Americans already have?

The one I named, not being a man and woman, just as three people or a man and multiple wives are denied those 1400 rights now. I say give gays civil unions and stop brainwashing the children and I'd be fine with it.

How does that destroy traditional marriage? How does that prevent heterosexual couples from divorcing each other? How does that destroy American families? What logical reasons do you possess that weren't scribbled on a tablet in a desert thousands of years ago?

5,000 years of human history has supported the idea of marriage between a man and woman, and most of those people never heard of that tablet you reference. Take the CA referendum where 52% supported traditional marriage, there aren't enough evangelical Christians there to make up 52%.

Sure our laws are based on good things, but I'm saying you can't impose religious beliefs onto a society that doesn't agree.

You're the one wanting to impose by judicial fiat, referendums clearly show most Americans don't want gay marriage.

You wouldn't want Sharia Law in the courts, so why do you want Levitical Law? It's the same thing!

So let's get rid of laws against murder, OK? You are displaying what Wm. F. Buckley called the classic liberal failure, the failure to properly discriminate between issues.

Just Law boils down to human rights. Rights, protections, and fairness. Everyone should be equal under the law. There should not be any separate but equal laws, or any laws for a minority -- based on race, gender, orientation, or otherwise.

Just as this famous man said himself:

"The United States is in no sense founded upon the Christian doctrine.
_____[/color]
SOURCE

Yes, that was George Washington.

Other founders say otherwise. BTW, what do you think George would have thought of two men getting married?

Oh you mean like GOP candidate Michele Bachmann? Who herself was raised in a single parent home (see below).

And she admits that is a sub-optimal situation. It does not change the studies showing the detrimental effects of single-parent homes.

And the nerve she has... she wants to lower taxes for married couples but keep a higher tax burden on single parent families -- on mothers, etc. So much for smaller government!

Given the huge societal costs from the negative fallout of single-parenthood, we have an interest in fostering two-parent families.

Correction, there is an additional mother or father present in a gay family than there would be in a single parent home -- not that there's anything wrong with either.

But apparently, you think 2 parents are better than 1, only if the parents are of the opposite sex -- as if that somehow affected parenting skills.

Wow, political correctness running rampant here. Go ahead and ignore the science showing kids need a mom and dad, but no kid would choose to sign up for this weird experiment. Kids should be more important than advancing the gay agenda of normalizing perversion.

[Scotracer]

You can argue Natural Law, which further goes against your position.

And I'd remind you that the Argument from Nature is a logical fallacy.

[East of Eden]

You can argue Natural Law, which further goes against your position.

And I'd remind you that the Argument from Nature is a logical fallacy.

Your opinion is noted.

[Scotracer]

You can argue Natural Law, which further goes against your position.

And I'd remind you that the Argument from Nature is a logical fallacy.

Your opinion is noted.

Well, everyone watching this debate we can see from the above that East of Eden doesn't understand logical fallacies. Please extrapolate this out to the rest of his arguments on this topic.

[Darias]

You can argue Natural Law, which further goes against your position.

And I'd remind you that the Argument from Nature is a logical fallacy.

Your opinion is noted.

There's no opinion here; homosexual behavior is found throughout the animal kingdom -- as such, what natural laws are humans transgressing by also engaging in such behavior?

Homosexuality is natural, but not as prevalent as heterosexuality. But prevalence doesn't necessarily determine worth. The fact is, evolution has explanations for homosexuality and explains its purposes among different species.

Sure you may retort "Well we aren't animals" -- but then again I must ask you, why did you bring up "natural law" in the first place?

[East of Eden]

You can argue Natural Law, which further goes against your position.

And I'd remind you that the Argument from Nature is a logical fallacy.

Your opinion is noted.

There's no opinion here; homosexual behavior is found throughout the animal kingdom -- as such, what natural laws are humans transgressing by also engaging in such behavior?

Homosexuality is natural, but not as prevalent as heterosexuality. But prevalence doesn't necessarily determine worth. The fact is, evolution has explanations for homosexuality and explains its purposes among different species.

How would non-reproducing homosexuals even survive under evolutionary theory?

[Meow Mix]

How would non-reproducing homosexuals even survive under evolutionary theory?

Because the populations that produce them survive just fine, in the same way that sterile people survive. Furthermore, homosexuals and sterile people contribute to that population's survival in every way except reproduction. Sometimes it's the case that such is more beneficial than having more reproducers in the population.

One might as well ask, "How would non-reproducing bees even survive?"