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?

[Board]

You are trying to equate christians who oppose gay marriage from a Biblical point of view to people who attack and physically harm people, this is not accurate. I don't know anyone who has attacked a homosexual. There are nuts out there but I doubt they are Bible believing christians

No True Scotsman? again? Does it ever end with Christians?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_a ... GBT_people

educate yourself.

That is the other thing I am not worried about history I am worried about how God will judge me. There are many things the world says is acceptable but God will judge otherwise. We are to show people, in love as much as possible, why we feel the way we do and to show people a better way.

None of this can be shown to be true.

Nobody forces you to not live with your partner or to live your day to day life with whoever you want but what you are asking for is us to accept your lifestyle and we can't do that.

Accept or reject the LGBT community as you wish. The only thing being asked is that you stop discriminating against them. Regardless of whether or not you hide behind your religion makes no difference. You are discriminating against another group of humans. No matter how in the minority they are the discrimination is wrong. It is unethical. It is unacceptable.

[lastcallhall]

No True Scotsman? again? Does it ever end with Christians?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_a ... GBT_people

educate yourself.

there are bad people in every walk of life but I don't know anyone that has attacked a homosexual because they are gay. Our church has a saying, come as you are but don't leave as you came. NOBODY should be subject to violence and if the person is a christian I will speak against them.

[Board]

there are bad people in every walk of life but I don't know anyone that has attacked a homosexual because they are gay.

Your personal experience bears no meaning to the debate. There are people who are Bible believing Christians who do indeed demean, assault, and even kill people because they are gay. Just because you do not know them does not mean they do not exist and are not acting on what they think God wants them to do. This does not make them any less of a Christian as the commandment is right there in scripture to act this way:

Leviticus 20:13 (New International Version)
13 If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

The commandment is to put them to death.

When text like this is included in a religious text some people may take it "the wrong way" and go around killing people. That is just what you get when you have violent language included in something you are pushing as the ultimate truth.

I would say the bad people are given an opening with this text to act out their violent tendencies and easily justify them as what a higher power has commanded them to do.

Is it a bad interpretation? maybe... but the text is plainly calling for people to be put to death. Is changing the text an option? apparently it is the inerrant word of God so no... so we are left with violent commandments that some people will follow to the letter.

The religion promoting this text as truth is partially to blame for the actions of those who carry out their detestable commandments.

Our church has a saying, come as you are but don't leave as you came. NOBODY should be subject to violence and if the person is a christian I will speak against them.

Is that what the Bible tells you to do? Not subject people to violence? The only person who I see as non-violent in the tales of the Bible is Jesus and even he had his moments...

[Meow Mix]

Nobody forces you to not live with your partner or to live your day to day life with whoever you want but what you are asking for is us to accept your lifestyle and we can't do that.

I'm not asking you to accept my "lifestyle" (I don't really have a "lifestyle" that's different other than my lover is female, by the way).

I'm asking you not to vote for laws that strip me of my equal rights. I'm not asking you to vote for laws that legalize homosexual marriage, I'm not asking churches to marry gays if they don't want to. I'm not asking anyone to say they like homosexuality if they don't.

I'm asking people not to vote away my rights by voting for amendments that ban gay marriage.

You don't condone homosexuality if you refrain from voting -- what you do if you refrain from voting is you stop being an oppressor.

I asked this before but I want a serious answer if you don't mind: if enough people wanted to put a bill through that made it illegal to worship idols or religions other than Christianity, would you vote for it?

The reason why I ask is because I want you to be aware of your own inconsistency:

1) If you would vote for an amendment to strip other religions of their right to practice, then I guess at least you're consistent even if you disagree with the American ideals of equality.

2) If you would not vote for an amendment to strip other religions of their right to practice, would you consider that somehow "condoning" or "liking" the worshipping of idols?

2a) If you would consider it condoning or liking the worshipping of idols then at least you're partially consistent -- but if so, why refrain from voting away their equal civil rights?

2b) If you would not consider it condoning or liking the worshipping of idols to refrain from stripping away their rights, then why do you insist on being an oppressor of gay equality?

That's what I don't get. I'm assuming that you probably agree with freedom of religion (though I don't *know* that), so I'm assuming you might be okay (even if you don't condone it) for other people to practice different beliefs. I don't understand why you would oppress homosexuals and not other religions, is what I'm saying.

I've seen your arguments that are based on your religion against homosexuality, but your religion also has arguments against the worshipping of idols or gods other than God. So why do you vote to oppress homosexuals, why don't you vote to oppress idol worshippers too?

Do you believe in freedom and equality or not?

Again, it isn't condoning homosexuality to just refrain from voting on oppressive bills any more than it's condoning idol worshipping to refrain from infringing other religions' rights. Is that at least a fair point?

[WinePusher]

I think you have a serious worldview distortion if you don't believe homosexuals have had a rough time through history -- just as much as racial minorities when open about it.

Don't put words in my mouth. I said the plight homosexuals face and have faced is nowhere near equivalent to the plight African Americans faced, this particular group is one people like you try to equate with the the plight of the contemporary gay community and it's wrong. Also, before you joined this forum I had expressed concerns for real discrimination against gays, whether it be amoung peers or family. In particular, my worldview (that thing which you claim to have knowledge on ) had been changed when I watched a movie titled Prayers For Bobby. So before you run about passing judgement on my worldview, it would be useful for you to gain some sort of clue as to what that worldview actually is.

Your indignation at my perceived trivialization of what racial minorities have gone through should be directed at your trivialization of what homosexuals have gone through and still go through, since we still aren't as free as you or even as racial minorities.

Yea right, the gay community certainly isn't free in America. Go to a Middle Eastern Theocracy to see how much more free it can get. Go tell that to the minorities your community is trying to use for the advancement of their agenda who have experienced the inability to vote or have the government consider you less than human and see what type of responses this type of comment prompts.

PS, why is it that you're against Sharia Law but you seem to want to implement some sort of pseudo-Christian Law?

I'm very much done with the abusively stretched false equivalences you're dismally drawing. There is clearly something wrong when you try to equate the real existence and defined principles of Sharia Law with an imaginative and speculative Christian Law. I guess equating the strive towards homosexual marriage with the lynching of blacks wasn't enough, so you had to go onto equating the murder of woman with the preservation of the sanctity of marraige. I have never suggested that I want to implement some sort of Pseudo-Christian Law. I approach policy issues and form opinions of them using my faith, my reasoning skills and my experience. That you view a person taking their Christian Faith into consideration when forming opinions on social issues as a means of implementing religious law is troubling, to say the least, but none of my businees.

[Meow Mix]

.

Wine, I don't have time to publish a response just yet but I noticed things are getting hostile between us. I'm guilty about this too and I think it's because of the high emotional stake this particular subject has with me (and possibly with you as well), but I only said "I think" when I accused you of having a skewed worldview. I try not to make assumptions that are too strong, I hope you see that.

I don't want to be your enemy, I don't want to yell at each other. I'm sorry if I already have; but as I said this issue is very powerfully emotional for me, so it's difficult not to get a little empassioned.

Can we agree that even if we vehemently disagree with one another's position that we can still like each other?

I'll respond in full either way, I just wanted to let you know that none of the excitement or negatively emotional tones of my posts have to do with either you or Lastcallhall personally. It's the ideology of preventing gay marriage that I have an issue with, not you two as persons.

Just wanted to make you aware of that. I'll respond in full tomorrow or Sunday, I'm going out with some friends for now.

[WinePusher]

.

Wine, I don't have time to publish a response just yet but I noticed things are getting hostile between us. I'm guilty about this too and I think it's because of the high emotional stake this particular subject has with me (and possibly with you as well), but I only said "I think" when I accused you of having a skewed worldview. I try not to make assumptions that are too strong, I hope you see that.

I don't want to be your enemy, I don't want to yell at each other. I'm sorry if I already have; but as I said this issue is very powerfully emotional for me, so it's difficult not to get a little empassioned.

Can we agree that even if we vehemently disagree with one another's position that we can still like each other?

I'll respond in full either way, I just wanted to let you know that none of the excitement or negatively emotional tones of my posts have to do with either you or Lastcallhall personally. It's the ideology of preventing gay marriage that I have an issue with, not you two as persons.

Just wanted to make you aware of that. I'll respond in full tomorrow or Sunday, I'm going out with some friends for now.

Meow Mix, I'm sorry if I've presented my posts in a disrespectful and hostile manner. I have nothing against you personally and I'm sorry if I've come across as a jerk. I think you're a very potent debater on here and I enjoy reading your posts, they're very well written. So please, don't take my strong tone personally. I will make an effort to tone it down if you are inclined to continue discussing this issue.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 65:

Don't put words in my mouth. I said the plight homosexuals face and have faced is nowhere near equivalent to the plight African Americans faced, this particular group is one people like you try to equate with the the plight of the contemporary gay community and it's wrong.
...
Go to a Middle Eastern Theocracy to see how much more free it can get.
...

I make no distinction regarding severity of oppression, only to note that where oppression occurs, all freedom loving individuals ought to join together to stamp it out.

...
There is clearly something wrong when you try to equate the real existence and defined principles of Sharia Law with an imaginative and speculative Christian Law...
>please see original for full context<

That we've been somewhat successful in rebutting attempts by (many) Christians to instute a theocracy does in no way mean they haven't tried and certainly doesn't mean they're not trying now. I caution freedom loving individuals against ever letting their guard down in this matter.

We need only look at the words of one current theocratic darling, the lovely Ms. Palin for guidance...

I beg you, Women of Joy, to bring light and be involved, loving America and praying for her. Really, it is our solemn duty. Praying for true spiritual awakening to overcome deterioration. That is where God wants us to be. Lest anyone try to convince you that God should be separated from the state, our Founding Fathers, they were believers. And George Washington, he saw faith in God as basic to life.

[dianaiad]

For starters.... quoting Fox News or Focus on the Family will get you no where on this topic. Find a source that is more neutral on this topic if you want anyone to give the claims made the time of day.

Now regarding the article, the first half is a lot like most debates we have here on this site on this topic. Nothing but a whole steaming pile of red herrings. The writer is not worth any level of respect as he walks down a slandering and slimy path of denigrating his opponents for things that happened 50 years ago. What a giant mess of uneducated, bigoted, stinking pile of words that were not worth reading... but I digress.

1. The New Mexico couple operate a business. They were not a private club or a religion. They are a business. A business does NOT have the right to discriminate against those seeking their services.

Why not?

It is true that if you own a home, you may not choose who buys it, if they make an offer that satisfies what you are asking for.

If you rent a home, you cannot discriminate against anybody for anything but pets, kids or credit rating.

If you own a restaurant, you may require someone to wear shirts, shoes or ties...but you can't discriminate against customers because of their skin color sexual orientation or religion (if those last two are not displayed in violation of the no shirt/shoes/ties thing, anyway.)

Why? Because they are public accommodations.

Services like photographers, however, are not (even though New Mexico says so) They are artists, and as such they depend upon their own convictions and beliefs than someone who owns a McDonalds does.

By this case, New Mexico has said that if you are a photographer...or anybody else who offers a service, you have no say in who you work for; if someone wants you to take their picture, then you have to take their picture, no matter what.

...................you can't say no because you don't want to go to a dangerous area. You can't say no because you don't feel experienced enough to do the job properly. You cannot, in other words, say no, period. You especially can't say 'no' because your religion says you can't.

.....and I keep being told that having the government redefine marriage to include gays won't force religions to marry gay people or alter their doctrines and behavior; that this won't interfere with freedom of religion.

Yeah, right.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 69:

...
.....and I keep being told that having the government redefine marriage to include gays won't force religions to marry gay people or alter their doctrines and behavior; that this won't interfere with freedom of religion.

Given that so many religious folks think it's their god-given right to interfere in the lives of others, maybe what we need is some interferin' in religion.