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?

[lastcallhall]

Frankly, I'm fed up with hearing religious zealots speak of the oppression of others as if they are on some grand moral crusade.

I get sick of society tolerating sin but we all have our battles.

This is nothing more than human bigotry and hatred hiding behind a god that none can show exists. All available evidence indicates the "believer" has come to a uman decision that homosexuality is to be condemned, and danged if they don't go about trying to do it.

Shame on the lot of ya, and your putrid god.

What I find interesting is you call christians haters because the Bible calls this sin and we oppose it but what about secular people who just vote against it because they think it is gross? When I played sports in high school the worst insult that was given was to call someone gay and let me tell you the people saying those things were not christians. My point is I don't hate anyone or call anyone names but we are called intolerant. I would suggest you at least be honest and admit a large group that you need to get on your side are secular men.

[Scotracer]

Well luckily for gay people, I highly doubt there'll be a public vote on gay marriage again - it is a topic that is based on rights therefore public opinion should never judge it. Just look at New York where this week Gay Marriage is likely to go through - it is being voted on by the Senators, not the public.


On Revelation 21:8

8 But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars"they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.

Your god is vile if this is supposed to be correct, but we can rest soundly given it makes no sense - hell is supposed to be out of this universe in some non-physical realm, therefore the threat of 'burning sulphur' makes no sense. You can't have burning or sulphur without our physical reality.

[Ragna]

Frankly, I'm fed up with hearing religious zealots speak of the oppression of others as if they are on some grand moral crusade.

I get sick of society tolerating sin but we all have our battles.

Yes, some have righteous battles, others have imaginary battles, others have unjust battles... that's the point.

How can you get sick of society tolerating that which you can't even prove? That's plain irrational.

[SailingCyclops]

I have addressed the things you have mentioned previously but you keep with divorce
[...]
I have answered any question you have, you keep bringing up the same questions, which ones have I not answered?

No you haven't. At least I don't understand. Let me ask it simply.

From what I have read you state, your church has no saved people in it who are on their second marriage. Is that right?

There is no divorce, so anyone in a second marriage is living in adultery (A sinful "lifestyle"), and is un-repentant. Repentance means turning away from your sin, so re-married people living in sin are damned. The only redemption would be to split from the second wife and return to the first, or remain celebate? This is what you are saying, right?

What denomination is this??

Bob

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 442:

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

I can dig it. My point was that it is ultimately a piece of paper, albeit with a very valuable - though to me blindingly obvious - tale to tell.

I'll concede I mighta coulda phrased it better.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 443:

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.

I gotta chalk this one up to my disagreement with those who declare the Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality outright.

I respect, and 'preciate those Christians who disagree with me here, but I think the wording within the Bible is rather clear. Of course I must concede such is a theological deal, and "good luck with all that".

A majority of Americans support gay marriage

I'm not much for polls, except where there are votes. In this regard, I think its rather clear the majority of Americans have opposed homosexual marriage. Majority here may just mean majority of States - if that's not moving the goalposts.

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.

Agreed, with above caveat regarding votes.

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.

I contend they have these rights by virtue of being human. I'll concede the Constitution has some great ideas, but contend we can burn it and still the concepts survive. Tomato, tomahto.

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.

I contend it has occurred, in those states where "one man one woman" has been legislated into effect.

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.

Surely you're aware the Federal Government defines marriage as between one man and one woman, through the Defense of Marriage act.

With the utmost respect, I'm not much for "current trends" types of arguments, as the "current trend" is a whole heckuvalotta folks are oppressing a whole heckuvalotta other folks.

I agree with you in spirit, but see the battle for human rights as an ongoing struggle against an oppressor consisting of many.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 445:

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.

Do you expect more of a simpleton

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.

I'll concede the point up to the fact that we simply can't always know when such is directly related to religion, except to note there's a whole lot of religious folks doing it.

I further concede that not all cases are religiously motivated.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 449:

Frankly, I'm fed up with hearing religious zealots speak of the oppression of others as if they are on some grand moral crusade.

I get sick of society tolerating sin but we all have our battles.

While you are utterly incapable of showing a god even exists, much less to have an opinion on the doings of humans.

What I find interesting is you call christians haters because the Bible calls this sin and we oppose it but what about secular people who just vote against it because they think it is gross?

Shame on that bunch too.

When I played sports in high school the worst insult that was given was to call someone gay and let me tell you the people saying those things were not christians.

Naw, Christians never called folks gay

My point is I don't hate anyone or call anyone names but we are called intolerant.

I contend it is hateful and intolerant, among other choice words, to refuse to allow others to enjoy what one reserves for oneself.

I would suggest you at least be honest and admit a large group that you need to get on your side are secular men.

I'm into the chickies, I need none on my side but them.

That said, since the majority of the country professes to be Christian, I contend that if only those Christians against the rights of homosexuals'd put their bigotry aside, it wouldn't matter what secular folks thought.

[lastcallhall]

No you haven't. At least I don't understand. Let me ask it simply.

From what I have read you state, your church has no saved people in it who are on their second marriage. Is that right?

No there are many saved people in our church that are in a second marriage.

There is no divorce, so anyone in a second marriage is living in adultery (A sinful "lifestyle"), and is un-repentant. Repentance means turning away from your sin, so re-married people living in sin are damned. The only redemption would be to split from the second wife and return to the first, or remain celebate? This is what you are saying, right?

So you really think that a person who was divorced prior to being a christian and then got remarried but now has accepted Jesus as Lord and savior and repented of the sin should get divorced again? You think that Jesus did not pay the price for that sin and you option is to destroy another family and have kids not be with both mom and dad? You are 100% wrong and you would be committing a sin by divorcing your current wife because now you know it is sin.

What denomination is this??

Bob

I am an evangelical christian

[lastcallhall]

While you are utterly incapable of showing a god even exists, much less to have an opinion on the doings of humans.

I guess I am not asking you to believe in God but I do and the Bible in my view is his word and I follow it.

Shame on that bunch too.

Fair enough

Naw, Christians never called folks gay

There are some that do make poor comments but my point is I think secular men, in my experiences, say many more harmful and hateful things about gays then the christians I know. Just my observation.

I contend it is hateful and intolerant, among other choice words, to refuse to allow others to enjoy what one reserves for oneself.

I guess we just disagree what hateful is

I'm into the chickies, I need none on my side but them.

That said, since the majority of the country professes to be Christian, I contend that if only those Christians against the rights of homosexuals'd put their bigotry aside, it wouldn't matter what secular folks thought.

My point is christians vote and we vote the Bible, you first need to get young men especially out to vote for gay rights but in general get people out to vote that generally could care less about politics. If the secular folks voted as much as right wing christians the laws would be different, IMO.