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?

[Ragna]

And neither are passing on any genes. Homosexuality supports the Biblical, not the evolutionary view. Their is no evolutionary benefit to this 'mutation'.

I think it's apparent how much you know about both evolution and homosexuality (and how much you explored the answers given to you). This happens because of the biased oversimplification of theories and situations.

You, ironically, are the only one who is supposing homosexuality is entirely genetic. Why this supposition?

By your own logic, chaste priesthood would "extinguish" down the generations, because they didn't pass on their "priest" genes... Are you calling that a mutation? Double standard?

[micatala]

Gay marriage is forcing christinas to accept the lifestyle and if you don't, well you just hate people. I see it as I am standing up for my beliefs and I will be true to God above all.

How is gay marriage "forcing Christians to accept the lifestyle?"


How does legalizing gay marriage infringe on your constitutional rights in any way?

[lastcallhall]

The reason why there is a term known as homophobia is because a heck of a lot of people do hate gay people, and unfortunately a lot of people doing the hating are Christians.

I know many christians but none that hate gay people, do you have any proof of this? I know non religious people that seem to hate gay people and use slurs all of the time. I try not to lump all non christians together and I would hope you would do the same.

If they don't literally sit around all day with anger in their hearts, then in the least they say hurtful things (not, homosexuality is a sin, but "pray the gay away or burn"); and if nothing, they are pretty oblivious to the plight of LGBT persons and instead far too focused on "Christian persecution" in the United States (which is relatively non-existent in comparison to other countries.)

You are wrong, the middle east actually persecute gays, christians do not set out to harm gays. (If you want to call the nuts at Westboro christians ok, I don't) What christian persecution do you speak of? The fact laws are being passed to sue christians who do not perform gay weddings? Who goes to gay bars and try to stop anyone from doing anything? The agenda here is to cram this down christian America's throat like it or not. The only sin secular humanism seems to have or liberals in general is the sin of "intolerance". We are called hateful for sticking up for God's word and that is ok, we will keep standing by his word no matter how low society falls into sin.

I have not called anyone names, and if I ever have, I apologize. I believe that even if someone is in the wrong on an issue, their lack of being informed does not define them as a person.

Thanks and I really don't get offended if I sounded like it I am sorry. I like the debate and respect other opinions

You're trying to tell me that you're firm on your position because you equate such a position with God's will, no if's and's or but's.

I believe my position is God's position and nobody has shown me otherwise. If I have found God's opinion why would I change it even if society calls me wrong?

I'm trying to explain to you why people who support equal rights, including many Christians both liberal and conservative, see this as closed-minded, at times very hateful depending on the person, and at best ignorant of the reality that such attitudes create unfairness under the law.

And my position is that the ignorance comes from the side that is playing with sin, all sin will damn your soul and I don't want to see anyone damned.

Now, some points:


1. Your doctrines and conservative reading and view that the Bible is infallible, inerrant, and directly from God does not = The Bible. If someone dismisses or disagrees with your perspective and interpretation for whatever reason (out of conviction, logic or whathaveyou), it does not mean that they are throwing the Bible in the trashcan.

Fair enough, I feel the literal translation is the only way to read the Bible but I understand others don't feel that way.

2. Gays do not want to force Christians to marry them; Gays do not seek to ban straight marriage, nor do they seek to destroy the family. The best way to save straight marriage is to teach children not to rush into relationships, which is probably why half of Christian marriages end in divorce.

I think that is wrong, why did the couple sue the photographers? To prove a point and stop others from even thinking about saying no to doing a gay wedding. I see this as the first step to many laws passed to stop the literal preaching of the gospel. I have found that universalists seem to accept any religion or message as long as it is not the intolerant close minded view of the conservative christian and I see gay marriage as the first step.

Christian churches will not have to marry gay people unless they so choose, depending what type of Christian church it is of course.

I think that is wrong, why could they not sue a church like the New Mexico couple got sued? I think lawsuits will come overnight.

Marriage is a legal institution; you may believe that it is a divine creation, but the fact is modern marriage evolved from Medieval customs. Before this there was lots of polygamy and stuff goin' around that the Bible never condemned.

Marriage affords 1,400 rights to straight couples that it does not afford to gay people who wish to be recognized as a family, and they could be just as much a family as any straight family can be. The idea that they cannot is not substantiated and is solely based in the priori assumption that gays are sinners, gays have mental disorders, gays are beasts, gay relationships are a lifestyle whereas straight relationships are loving - etc. etc. -- all unsubstantiated bias -- all used in weak arguments meant to shore up fundamentalist dogma.

Gays are sinners like the rest of us, the difference is other sinners don't try to have their lifestyle accepted by everyone while continuing to live in sin. I would not accept any lifestyle that lived in open sin to God.

Have you ever heard the saying "The devil can use the Bible for his own purposes"?

Yes I have and like you can imagine I believe it is used by the devil against christinas to show us as hateful and bigoted on this issue.

Just about every ilk since Christ first came has been justified with Biblical passages, whether it be about geocentrism, burning witches, supporting monarchies, opposing abolition, opposing women's suffrage, opposing inter-racial marriage etc. etc.

The difference is I am not telling anyone they can be with who they want to, I am saying I will not vote to legalize a sinful lifestyle.

In my opinion, the fundamentalist insistence and border-line obsession with gay marriage is just another mis-use of the Bible -- a mis-use that hurts a lot of people.

Fair enough but what if you are wrong and God is against gay marriage, your message would send many people to hell believing God is for the lifestyle. It goes both ways my friend.

Banning gay marriage will not save anyone's souls. It only creates resentment in the gay community, and turns-off young people like myself - to the message of the church.

God says to preach the truth and that is what I do. I try as much as possible to show I act out of love. I am sorry if it turns anyone off from the church but my main concern is pleasing God.

I don't accept any of the arguments presented by any Christian or non-Christian that opposes gay marriage for one reason and for one reason only -- none of them have any merit. They are all fundamentally flawed.

That is your right

And like I said, if that doesn't matter to you -- if you are wise in your own estimation of what God's scripture says -- then be my guest and vote as you will.

But remember your rights are not on the chopping block when you pull that lever in the booth -- other people's are.

I really truly understand what my vote does and I would never take it lightly. I will never take the right to vote lightly, period. To many have sacrificed way too much on the alter of freedom to waste a vote.

And if your gut tells you to refuse to sympathize with people's plights, to forgo the reason and intellect that God has provided you with, and to ignore the realities of the consequences -- than you go right ahead. And you live with your vote.

But don't expect love and inquiries on how to be saved, when you're the giver of snakes and stones.

I see it just the opposite I bring the good news of salvation and that is love. John 3:16

[lastcallhall]

But in this case you're advocating that they shouldn't be allowed, based on purely religious grounds, and from an extremist literalist position within religion at that. If people are free, as you say, let them be. Ever read the constitution?

They are free, just don't ask me to vote for something I view as sin. I have read the constitution and it says I have the right to vote and it does not say how I have to vote.

Nonsense. No one is forcing to you to get married to a man. No one is forcing you to express approval.

Is asking me to vote for gay marriage not asking for my approval?

Go ahead and hate it and go ahead and believe the bible literally. It's your right. BUT you must accept their rights in a pluralistic and secular society to participate fully with zero regard for your personal religious beliefs (welcome to america).

I don't hate anyone how can you possibly know what is in my heart? Where does it say I can't vote the Bible? I have voted the Bible the last 7 years and will never not vote the Bible until Jesus returns or I go to him.

After all, no one is taking away your right to believe and live the lifestyle you want, even if it sickens us (which it does). Why? Probably because we remember civics class and are better americans.

I am sorry if my view sickens you but what sickens me is a society that openly thumbs it's nose at God. The fact that we accept your religion unless you really believe it or it becomes a bother then we don't like it. Well sorry I love Jesus more than even America.

[lastcallhall]

How is gay marriage "forcing Christians to accept the lifestyle?"

Ask the couple from New Mexico

How does legalizing gay marriage infringe on your constitutional rights in any way?

I refer to my first answer

[Ragna]

Still with that? Not again please...

How is gay marriage "forcing Christians to accept the lifestyle?"

Ask the couple from New Mexico

Do you realize why this is not useable as a defense anymore?

According to your logic, I can say I won't accept priesthood in my country anymore. After all, there have been some Christian pedophiles. Ask them.

That's no way a reasonable justification.

I refer to my first answer

It's useless to keep on shielding on that. LGTB is not generally asking for laws to make you gay or marry men, or whatever happens in Mexico like discriminating against homophobic heterosexuals (that even sounds funny as for how it twists the real situation in 90% of the world). I'd even agree with you to reject those. As for the laws to grant them equally lawful unions as citizens, those are entirely justified.

[micatala]

How is gay marriage "forcing Christians to accept the lifestyle?"

Ask the couple from New Mexico

You mentioned that in another post as well.

I think that is wrong, why could they not sue a church like the New Mexico couple got sued? I think lawsuits will come overnight.

You seem to be ignoring the explanations given about this already.

First, the New Mexico couple was operating a business considered under the law a public accomodation.

That situation is irrelevant to churches, especially since it has long been recognized that churches do have the right to discriminate. Any church can decide not to marry any couple for pretty much any reason. The Catholic church or any other church can refuse to allow female clergy.

Why do you continue to bring up an example and apply it to an irrelevant situation?




I will grant that anyone can sue for almost any reason. However, the courts, while not perfect, are pretty good at dismissing the frivolous suits. And besides, this would be the flip side of your voting to discriminate against gays based on your beliefs. Are you saying it is OK for you to do that, even voting for laws that are unconstitutional, but it is not OK for others to vote differently than you or employ the courts to support views different than yours?


AND keep in mind your example, as has been pointed out, is irrelevant to the question I raised since the NM couple was sued without gay marriage being legal in NM. Thus, your example is not an example of a right being infringed on by legal gay marriage.

How does legalizing gay marriage infringe on your constitutional rights in any way?

I refer to my first answer

Your answer does not meet the criteria requested.

You do not have a constitutional right to discriminate against a person when you run a business. Thus, no constitutional right was violated.

The NM couple, as individual citizens, did not have their rights infringed on. They are still free to worship and express their views as they see fit.


What rights does legalizing gay marriage infringe on?


If you want me to narrow the question, give me an individual right that is acknowledged as a right for all individual citizens that is infringed on by allowing gay marriage to be legal?

[JohnPaul]

You do not have a constitutional right to discriminate against a person when you run a business. Thus, no constitutional right was violated.

The NM couple, as individual citizens, did not have their rights infringed on. They are still free to worship and express their views as they see fit.

I am not religious or a Christian, but the rights of the NM couple to RUN A BUSINESS were certainly infringed on, and as a retired small businessman, I certainly hope this case is not over.

You cannot legally discriminate against a "person," but you certainly can discriminate against a person's BEHAVIOR. Bare feet, no shirt, drunk, rowdy, offensive language, etc., are just a few examples. It is also perfectly legal to limit the scope of your business services in advertising and in personal negotiations.

The couple in NM left themselves open to a malicious lawsuit by being careless in their advertising and in the words used when refusing service. Hopefully, other small business people will take warning about this new source of malicious lawsuits.

I have nothing against gays and usually support them, but this NM case was outrageous and intolerable behavior!

John

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 421:

I know many christians but none that hate gay people, do you have any proof of this?

It is my contention that advocating for the oppression of others is an act of hatred.

Seeking to withhold from another group what one's own group enjoys is as hateful an act as I can imagine.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 426:

I have nothing against gays and usually support them, but this NM case was outrageous and intolerable behavior!

Would JohnPaul not want anyone seeking redress of grievances through the courts?

I'd think the one to be mad at would be the bigot.