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?

[SailingCyclops]

The point i think is that Lastcallhall is saying he objects to all forms of what he thinks is immorality, and is willing to try to use the law to impose his moral ideals on others who do not share them.

In short, Lastcallhall is calling for a pseudo-theocracy. It's the "agenda" of the radical Christian right, not unlike the Taliban, and un-American at it's core. There are active religious/political movements in America today which are preaching almost the exact same pseudo-Christianity which we have read over and over here in this thread.

One of many examples is the Center for Reclaiming America.

The Center for Reclaiming America is an offshoot of Dr. D. James Kennedy's Coral Ridge Ministries. Once again, we see a radical religious right group co-opting the word "America" to make their narrow-minded, discriminatory, intolerant agenda seem to be "American". The clear subliminal message (an oxymoron, I know) is that if you do not support the Center, you are "unAmerican".

Coral Ridge Ministries began in 1974 in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Today, what started as a radio simulcast of a sermon has blossomed into a multi-medium media giant that produces The Coral Ridge Hour, Truths That Transform and The Kennedy Commentary, reaching almost 3 million people every week. The Center for Reclaiming America began in 1996 and in 2004, introduced a new executive director, Dr. Gary Cass. The Center's own website lists five areas where they focus their efforts and energies in what they call a "culture war":

* religious liberties (again, making the claim that Christians in general are being denied rights)
* the sanctity of life (anti-choice, anti-euthenasia, anti-right to die)
* the proverbial (and non-existant) "homosexual agenda"
* pornography
* creationism
[...]
"Our job is to reclaim America for Christ, whatever the cost....As the vice regents of God, we are to exercise godly dominion and influence over our neighborhoods, our schools, our government, our literature and arts, our sports arenas, our entertainment media, our news media, our scientific endeavors " in short, over every aspect and institution of human society."
[...]

More of their scree:

The time has come, and it is long overdue, when Christians and conservatives and all men and women who believe in the birthright of freedom must rise up and reclaim America for Jesus Christ.

"The intimate coupling of two men or two women is not marriage. It is a pale and misshapen counterfeit that will only serve to empty marriage of its meaning and destroy the institution that is the keystone in the arch of civilization ... Marriage is the sine qua non for healthy children and a stable society. It is 'fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race'..."

Reading through this thread, one can't help but surmise that many of the concepts put forth by a few, have come directly from the anti-American and theocratic sentiments preached by "churches" like these. We should thank the founding fathers for a constitution which protects us from radicals like these, preventing America from turning into a modern-day Taliban.

Bob

[Ragna]

The time has come, and it is long overdue, when Christians and conservatives and all men and women who believe in the birthright of freedom must rise up and reclaim America for Jesus Christ.

Believe in freedom and reclaim a whole country for one's own unsupported vision of reality, banning others.

Now, that's a contradiction... It's ethnocentric beyond any rationality, and can't but harm any society.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 439:

There are active religious/political movements in America today which are preaching almost the exact same pseudo-Christianity which we have read over and over here in this thread.

I'm not so certain "pseudo" applies. Given the majority population has so often voted against gay marriage when they were allowed to, and given the majority of folks self-identify as Christian, I think this oppressive ideology is inherent in the religion.

...
We should thank the founding fathers for a constitution which protects us from radicals like these, preventing America from turning into a modern-day Taliban.

With all respect, the Constitution doesn't protect anyone. I contend it is the willingness to rise up and defeat the oppressor at their own games that protects folks. When the oppressor speaks, freedom lovers should yell.

[Goat]

From Post 439:

There are active religious/political movements in America today which are preaching almost the exact same pseudo-Christianity which we have read over and over here in this thread.

I'm not so certain "pseudo" applies. Given the majority population has so often voted against gay marriage when they were allowed to, and given the majority of folks self-identify as Christian, I think this oppressive ideology is inherent in the religion.

...
We should thank the founding fathers for a constitution which protects us from radicals like these, preventing America from turning into a modern-day Taliban.

With all respect, the Constitution doesn't protect anyone. I contend it is the willingness to rise up and defeat the oppressor at their own games that protects folks. When the oppressor speaks, freedom lovers should yell.

With due respect, the Constitution is a valuable tool to protect the minorities against the tyranny of the majority.

[SailingCyclops]

I'm not so certain "pseudo" applies. Given the majority population has so often voted against gay marriage when they were allowed to, and given the majority of folks self-identify as Christian, I think this oppressive ideology is inherent in the religion.

Well yes and no. It is inherent in a sub-class of the religion, but not all. Reading this very thread will reveal that many Christians do not embrace this ideology.

A majority of Americans support gay marriage

Fri May 20, 2011 10:26pm EDT

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Fifty-three percent of Americans support making gay marriage legal, a Gallup poll showed on Friday, a marked reversal from just a year ago when an equal majority opposed same-sex matrimony.

The latest Gallup findings are in line with two earlier national polls this spring that show support for legally recognized gay marriage has, in recent months, gained a newfound majority among Americans.
[...]

Things are not as bleak as you might think. Americans are becoming more aware of the human rights arguments in favor of banning this discrimination. The old radical religious-rights canards, lies, and disinformation are being effectively countered by media coverage, education, and the rise of a new more enlightened generation.

With all respect, the Constitution doesn't protect anyone. .....

It's the Constitution which is being used as the basis to defeat these discriminatory practices. If you think about it Gays already have the right to all civil statutes under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.

Laws permitting institutionalized discrimination against any group are already illegal under the constitution. What some fanatic Christians are attempting to do it overthrow current protections. That is not going to happen. A constitutional amendment requires 3/4 of States to ratify, by 3/4 of each state's votes. Given the current trend in public opinion, that's not going to happen. These folks are simply making a lot of noise, and blowing a lot of hot air. The courts have, and continue to rule against local discrimination statutes.

Bob

[lastcallhall]

Just because he was a famous Christian, and just because he was a pastor, doesn't mean that what he said hasn't hurt anyone because it has. Of course that was his right, but freedom entails responsibility. And when you say hateful things, you must be prepared for the consequences -- and the consequences have been essentially more hatred and fear of gays in America and around the world.

I am not the kinda guy who judges where people go after death. What I care more about is the kinda impact they left behind. And it is my belief that he and his ugly words have left a black stain on our faith.

I think he left a wonderful legacy as well as Liberty University. This school is a wonderful christian university and will help save many lost souls, which is our goal as christians.

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

I do not agree with this because we live under grace right now and not the law. I believe God will take his blessing off of this country but I don't think he will bring judgment on us. This comment is not hateful in anyway tho.

"Christians, like slaves and soldiers, ask no questions."

'

What, I think, he is saying that we as christians are supposed to use the Bible for our truth and not use our opinions. I have no problem with this statement, I vote and think with the Bible.

"I believe that global warming is a myth. And so, therefore, I have no conscience problems at all and I'm going to buy a Suburban next time."

Global warming is a crock my Chevy Silverado does not get very good gas mileage, nor do I care. The earth will be burned up by God one day so I drive what I like the most.

"I truly cannot imagine men with men, women with women, doing what they were not physically created to do, without abnormal stress and misbehavior."

What is offensive here?

"If you're not a born-again Christian, you're a failure as a human being."

As christians don't we really believe that? I think he should have said it better but it is not untrue.

But you're right, enough of Falwell. Let's let him rest in peace.

Fair enough we will agree to disagree about Dr. Falwell

Imagine if Walmart, Pizza Hut, McDonalds, or Chick-fil-A denied services to a person they believed to be gay? Is that justified? Does servicing gay people offend Christian beliefs -- yet serving non-Christians, alcoholics, and racial minorities does not?

It's an injustice. It's wrong. Like I said before, it's like Christians who tell the poor people to come and sit at their feet, while they cater to the rich -- it's wrong.

McDonald's no, they are a large corporation that serves food, the question here is like the photography they were sued for not filming a ceremony that was offensive to them. I would sell them food but I would never help in anyway perform a ceremony, totally different.

2. Canadian Free Speech and Hate Speech Laws are fundamentally different from American ones, which are protected in our Constitution. Canadians lack the freedoms we possess in that regard because their system is formulated upon British law.

Because Canadian Law is not American Law, and never will be, It is a mighty giant leap of faith to believe that "We're next, just you wait; we'll all be in jail because of the speech-police" Nonsense. This is an irrational, fear-based assumption.

I for one hope that Canada strives for reforms which secure more leeway in free speech.

I understand that we are not Canada but I do not think it is a stretch to think that the laws here will change. I guess we will just agree to disagree again.

3. I have not heard about John Hagee not being allowed to speak in Canada; I would like to see your source if you have one. But I agree that if he isn't, that isn't right. And far be it from me to agree with anything he sells people. But I still defend his right to preach. His right to preach in America will never be infringed upon, as evidenced by WBC and the KKK -- both of which are allowed to be as racist and homophobic as their hearts desire.

I support Pastor Hagee's ministry and this was a few years back that his show is not allowed to air in Canada because of his views on homosexuality. I am sorry I do not have the newsletter that was sent out. I know of a few other ministries that have said the same thing so I guess I doubt they are all lying.

The "reason why ghting words are categorically excluded from the protection of the First Amendment is not that their content communicates any particular idea, but that their content embodies a particularly intolerable (and socially unnecessary) mode of expressing whatever idea the speaker wishes to convey."[40] Even in cases where speech encourages illegal violence, instances of incitement qualify as criminal only if the threat of violence is imminent.[41] This strict standard prevents prosecution of many cases of incitement, including prosecution of those advocating violent opposition to the government, and those exhorting violence against racial, ethnic, or gender minorities.[42]

Sure but right here I believe will be used by people to stop the preaching of the gospel. You have said some of the christians have helped with the african bills and why is it a leap to think that will be said here and that preaching Leviticus will be called inciting violence against gays?

I deal with it when I listen to John Hagee. I believe he is also harmful for Christianity and that his words are painfully un-Christlike, as exemplified Here:

[center][youtube][/youtube][/center]

And although, Hagee literally makes me sick to my stomach, I'll stand right by him and defend his rights to say whatever he wants to say -- 'cause this is America. And I'm really not the only one who supports the freedom of speech, you can bet your life on that one.

What did he say that offends you? Pastor Hagee is the best preacher I have ever heard hands down. That people that don't work shouldn't eat? I support welfare to those who can't work, like Hagee, but if you just don't feel like working then is it my responsibility to pay for them being lazy?

If you don't think that what big preachers say has a big influences on families and parents and children -- and if you don't think they regurgitate that garbage onto others with no regard to possible consequences -- well -- you're wrong.

Gay teens in America have a higher rate of suicides than straight teens -- and guess what - it ain't cause their gay. It's cause they are bullied; it's cause they are made to believe something is wrong with them and when they can't change they see no way out.

Gays aren't ending themselves for no reason -- and it's no mystery that hardline Christian teachings have had a hand in influencing hatred -- which can be very very harmful. Go see for yourself. Do some research on the young people who aren't around any more. Please don't ignore the reality. I'm not blaming you; I'm not -- but you gotta admit that gays sure aren't killing themselves because of liberals, that's for sure.

So you do not see this as a way to label preaching the gospel hate speech? I see this coming and coming soon. Another point we will have to agree to disagree.

There's that buzzword "lifestyle" again. Is it also a lifestyle for you to have natural urges for the opposite sex? Using "lifestyle" in a weak attempt to make gay feelings seem illegitimate isn't fooling anyone. Would admitting that choice may not always be involved shatter your worldview in any way?

It is a lifestyle choice, I have met people who call themselves gay but also believe the Bible so they are celibate. Being gay is not the sin, the lifestyle is the sin.

But even if you and others are firm in your own estimations, it really isn't related to the issue of same-sex marriage. There are many Christians who believe that being gay and having a relationship is a sin, and yet they still support legal rights for gays.

For a clearer explanation on how this may be, please read this document. The author is a female fundamentalist Christian. Check out what she has to say. Her arguments might be more well received than mine.

I will have to do some research on this person to give a response.


I have to run but will respond to the rest in a little bit

[micatala]

From Post 439:

There are active religious/political movements in America today which are preaching almost the exact same pseudo-Christianity which we have read over and over here in this thread.

I'm not so certain "pseudo" applies. Given the majority population has so often voted against gay marriage when they were allowed to, and given the majority of folks self-identify as Christian, I think this oppressive ideology is inherent in the religion.

I think your analaysis is a bit simplistic.

Many years ago, in my elementary and junior high school years, I saw many instances of kids taunting other kids who were perceived as gay, or just using gay epithets as general insults.

I don't think these kids were acting out of any kind of religious ideology.

This occurred rather equally at pubic and Catholic schools I attended.

Humanity has a long history of oppressing minorities, especially anyone perceived as "different" or "other." This sometimes has been justified in religious terms, but I think sociologists would agree religion is not an essential component of bigotry.

[JohnPaul]

Humanity has a long history of oppressing minorities, especially anyone perceived as "different" or "other." This sometimes has been justified in religious terms, but I think sociologists would agree religion is not an essential component of bigotry.

Much of the "Christian" ranting against homosexuality I have heard seems to depend, at least in part, on the verse in Leviticus which calls it an "abomination" and prescribes stoning to death as the penalty.

Leviticus is obviously part of the "Mosaic Law,"which I believe Christians claim was superceded by the "new covenant" with the advent of Jesus.

The obvious question here is, since the applicability of the Mosaic Law now is denied by Christians and Jesus had very little to say about it in the New Testament, are those people who use it now to condemn homosexuals really Christians? If not, aren't they themselves condemned to hell for refusing or denying the teaching of Jesus?

Or is it that you just can't believe everything Christians say?

John

[lastcallhall]

However, I can, and I already have, show you entire passages of scripture which define other sinful practices which are tolerated in Christian churches today, these include divorce and remarriage, female pastors, and not requiring coverings for women. All of which were strictly forbidden by Paul.

I have addressed the things you have mentioned previously but you keep with divorce, do you not think that someone who has truly repented of abortion can't be forgiven? Do you think Jesus was not sufficient to cover the sin of abortion? I believe his blood can make ANY sinner as white as snow and that includes divorce. If the person did not repent then he will not be forgiven and he will live in sin.

And if Paul's words are read as inerrant words of God when it comes to his condemnation of gay people, why do you attempt to place any cultural context around Paul's words concerning slaves and women? By doing so, are you not downplaying God's inerrant word because your own cultural customs disagree? Are you not doing the same thing I do when I defend gay people? Are you not being arbitrary in which verses you read literally and which verses you properly establish context (aka "explain away," "water down," etc.)

I have answered any question you have, you keep bringing up the same questions, which ones have I not answered?

And even if I could convince you that being gay isn't a sin according to a fundamentalist reading of scripture -- it doesn't necessarily follow that you would vote for gay marriage would you? Because, as East of Eden argues it would "destroy the family" and be "harmful for society" etc etc...

Scripture is all that matters, God knows what is good for us and what is not. I feel it will be very harmful to society if it is passed and I base that on scripture.

James 1:22-24
New King James Version (NKJV)

22 But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves. 23 For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man observing his natural face in a mirror; 24 for he observes himself, goes away, and immediately forgets what kind of man he was.

You are right! Because you value the religious rights to worship, it doesn't mean you have to invite Muslim imams to preach to your congregation -- but you still support their right to preach to Muslims and build their own mosques --(I'm assuming you do, but I have been wrong before)

Because they are not asking to change society and force their view on me. They can do what they want if they don't bother me and I am the same way with gays they can live how they want. I will not support the redefinition of marriage to thumb my nose at God almighty.

Tell me, if presented with the possibility to vote to ban non-Christian religions in your country via a Constitutional Amendment, would you do so?

If yes, then I admire you on your consistency and bravery in saying so.

If no, then I congratulate you for your support of freedom, but still rest my case on your inconsistent reasoning.

I don't think satanism should be allowed in the US military but your argument is not the same thing. Gay people can live with whoever they wish and they can eat at all the same places I can and they can go on vacation to the same places I can but I will not vote for gay marriage. Two totally separate issues.

Does your belief system maintain that 1,400 legal rights afforded to a straight couple in a legally recognized union shouldn't be afforded to gays who wish to be with their loved ones?

Please demonstrate that gays are trying to make you relinquish your fundamentalist, doctrinal beliefs? I'm not. I may be arguing against them, but I'm not forcing you to accept anything, and neither are gays. All the LGBT community wants are the same legal rights you have in marriage. They don't want to take over the church and hijack society and sue pastors and force them to marry them -- that's complete none-sense. It is an irrational fear of the gay community and has no basis in reality.

We will just have to agree to disagree on this.

No one reads Revelation literally. No one believes that there will be a literal monster with 7 heads... it is a metaphor for something else.

I understand there are some things that are not totally literal but the vast majority of the book is to be taken literal. Jesus will literally return, the anti christ will literally rule the world. There will be a literal white throne judgment.

What doesn't make sense is taking random verses from Revelations out of their immediate context and cultural context - time and place - and interpreting them into modern day events and politics.

I believe 100% that we are very very close to the end times. You see the countries described in Ezekiel lining up and it is scary that all the countries described are there for Armageddon.

When you do that, you end up with people like Phelps, or people who think Obama is the anti-Christ, or anti-Semitic accusations of John Hagee who think the anti-Christ is a Jew, and that 2/3s of all Jews will burn in hell and that only 144,000 will survive the onslaught and that they will magically convert to Christianity.

First I have listened to Pastor Hagee on a few hundred sermons and WHERE does he say the anti christ will be Jewish? He thinks the snit christ will come out of Germany. BTW Israel has no greater friend than pastor, he is a wonderful supporter of the jewish people. During the 7 year tribulation there will be 144,000 jews converted to evangelize.

To think that when people read revelation they think they see America, Hitler, the UN, the EU, Julian Assange, etc. -- it makes absolutely no sense. I mean, look at what the Left Behind Series has done; it has convinced a lot of Christians that Europe will establish a one world government and that any peace established by man with Israel and Palestine will usher in Armageddon.

T

What is false about that nations openly talk of a one world government and currency! The bible predicted in the end times economic collapse and the anti christ will ride into power because of the world wide crash, is it a huge stretch to see the world in complete collapse soon? Kissinger is pushing for a 1 world government. Many countries want one currency, what am I missing?

To me, such thinking is madness. But you are welcome to it if that's what you believe.

I believe it like I believe the sun will rise in the morning.

You can walk around with a Fred Phelps sign for all I care, and you won't get sued. You aren't a business, you are a person who has freedom of speech -- even extreme speech, and even hate speech.

But if you refuse to sell tacos to gay people because their existence, their spouses, offend you -- then get ready for someone to sue you, win, and take all your tacos.

Why would they want me there if I was preaching against the lifestyle? One reason they want to sue christians, there is NO other reason. If they didn't want trouble why not give business to a gay photographer that is discriminated by all of us hateful christians?

I never said you were, but you are pretty adamant that gay marriage assures eternal damnation, which is why you claim you vote against it.

It does, Rev 21:8

I hope you realize that my argument of your point was an attempt to illustrate your inconsistency. I don't think you are actually sending anyone anywhere because I don't believe hell is a literal place of lava. If it was, I'd never want anyone to go there. And if people did, I'd leave that judgement up to God.

If hell is not real how do you get around rev 21:8 and Luke 16: 19-31?

I appreciate your honesty but your reasoning leaves much to be desired

Thanks, I like the debate but I will give you one more Bible verse that sums up why I stick to my belief in the Bible.

James 4:4
New King James Version (NKJV)

4 Adulterers and[a] adulteresses! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Whoever therefore wants to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God.

I have already given you an article mentioning the relationship of David and Jonathan, but I'm sure you'll either dismiss it, take offense to it, or claim that it was one of David's sins he repented of.

King David was not gay

I am sorry that we just totally disagree on so many things, I will stand in opposition until I am convinced the from the Bible I am wrong.

[lastcallhall]

But you do because you've been raised in a culture that is thankful for religious tolerance, cause you know very well that without such tolerance your freedom of religion would be threatened by people who don't like your faith -- people who see your faith as a "Christian agenda" meant to harm our children and destroy families. (obviously I don't believe that characterization, but it's the exact characterization people use on gays all of the time) So that's why you support the freedom of religion but not equal rights for gays, Christians or otherwise.

Wrong again I have opposed strip clubs in our community and I would vote that filth to be illegal.

I am totally lost. Who said anything about strip clubs?

I was making a point that I do stand up for other biblical principles that the world calls acceptable.