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?

[Autodidact]

American Academy of Pediatrics Conference and Exhibition, Washington, D.C., Oct. 8-11, 2005. Ellen C. Perrin, MD, professor of pediatrics, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston. Carol Berkowitz, MD, former president, American Academy of Pediatrics.

"Children growing up in same-sex parental households do not necessarily have differences in self-esteem, gender identity, or emotional problems from children growing up in heterosexual parent homes."

"Research on non-clinical samples of children raised in lesbian-led families formed after parental divorce, together with studies of children raised in families planned by a single lesbian mother or lesbian couple, suggest that growing up in a lesbian-led family does not have negative effects on key developmental outcomes."
Fiona Tasker, "Children in Lesbian-led Families : A Review," Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, Vol 4, Issue 2, 1999-APR-1.

"almost uniformly reports findings of no notable differences between children reared by heterosexual parents and those reared by lesbian and gay parents..."
Judith Stacey & Timothy Biblarz, "(How) does the sexual orientation of parents matter?" American Sociological Review, 2001-APR, at: http://www.asanet.org/pubs/stacey.pdf

[note these are meta-studies that collect and evaluate results from several studies over several years.]

If you prefer cites to the individual studies that these collect, just ask. There are dozens of them, and they all reach the same conclusion. Children of two-mom families do AT LEAST as well as children of mom/dad families.

Also if you want the position statement from every major child-welfare and child health organization, just let me know and I will provide.

[Deadclown]

Thank you Autodidact, these look perfect, and I think will help a great deal in making my point.

American Academy of Pediatrics Conference and Exhibition, Washington, D.C., Oct. 8-11, 2005. Ellen C. Perrin, MD, professor of pediatrics, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston. Carol Berkowitz, MD, former president, American Academy of Pediatrics.

"Children growing up in same-sex parental households do not necessarily have differences in self-esteem, gender identity, or emotional problems from children growing up in heterosexual parent homes."

Alright lastcallhall, now I am going to dissect these in much the same way that I did your source. Behold my Google-fu.

First off here, we have a claim that shows no strong inherent bias. The only thing that is being claimed is that there is no apparent differences.

Now, we look at the individuals who are making the claim. While we could take their lists of credentials at face value, a true cynic would not. So I did some digging on them.

Ellen C. Perrin, MD definitely appears to check out as a practicing medical professional with the following areas of expertise - AIDS/HIV (Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome); Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) / Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD); Child Behavior Disorders; Learning Disorders; Seizure Disorders. She attended a well respected medical university (Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine). She also has made a large number of peer reviewed medical publications, including the pertinent one.

Carol Berkowitz, MD, also checks out as a licensed professional in pediatrics and emergency pediatric medicine. She attended Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, has made a large number of publications, and is well regarded by her peers.

Note how there is no clear sign of their sexual orientation, political views, or religious beliefs as these things shouldn't factor in at all. They are educated and respected in a specialty field that is viable for the opinion they offer. So they are an acceptable authority, especially when backed by research.

"Research on non-clinical samples of children raised in lesbian-led families formed after parental divorce, together with studies of children raised in families planned by a single lesbian mother or lesbian couple, suggest that growing up in a lesbian-led family does not have negative effects on key developmental outcomes."
Fiona Tasker, "Children in Lesbian-led Families : A Review," Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, Vol 4, Issue 2, 1999-APR-1.

Again, note the relatively neutral language that is used. A scientist rarely tries to prove a conclusion that they already hold or take results and try to apply them to broader generalities. Instead they come up with an idea and attempt to falsify it. In this case, they were trying to find evidence to show that lesbian parents would be detrimental, and could find none. So conclude not that 'lesbians are superior parents', only that there are no apparent negative effects.

Doctor Fiona Tasker appears to be a practicing professor at the University of Wales, Cambridge, with again a goodly number of published peer reviewed papers (like that one) and respect in her field. Nothing I have found leads me to believe she would have anything resembling a bias.

"almost uniformly reports findings of no notable differences between children reared by heterosexual parents and those reared by lesbian and gay parents..."
Judith Stacey & Timothy Biblarz, "(How) does the sexual orientation of parents matter?" American Sociological Review, 2001-APR, at: http://www.asanet.org/pubs/stacey.pdf

Again, note that their conclusion isn't something outlandish or sweeping. They do not claim that homosexual parents are 'superior' or that there are absolutely no differences, only that reviewed reports show no clear notable differences between children raised by heterosexual and homosexual parents.

Judith Stacey is a professor of Social and Cultural Analysis (Sociology) with a Ph. D. in Sociology from Brandeis University, got her Masters in History from the University of Illinois, Chicago, and her BA in Social Studies from the University of Michigan. She typically writes or does research involving gender; family; sexuality; feminist and queer theory; ethnography. From the looks of it her articles are well respected and cover a broad number of areas.

Timothy Biblarz is the Associate Professor and Chair of the Department of Sociology at the University of Southern California. He has PhD's in psychology and sociology from the University of Washington and MA's with significant involvement in human sexuality issues.

[note these are meta-studies that collect and evaluate results from several studies over several years.]

That is a-okay by me, but a good note to make. There are always noteable differences between a single solitary experiment or bit of research and the compilation of many such studies. The second is usually way way better at making generalizations.

If you prefer cites to the individual studies that these collect, just ask. There are dozens of them, and they all reach the same conclusion. Children of two-mom families do AT LEAST as well as children of mom/dad families.

I do not *require* them, but wouldn't mind reading them purely for my own ongoing education and sheer curiosity. The conclusions of the studies and clear citations from experts in their fields of specialty (as seen above) is extremely strong evidence.

Also if you want the position statement from every major child-welfare and child health organization, just let me know and I will provide.

Also unnecessary as far as I can see, but they are likewise good Authorities, and I am fairly sure I am aware what most of their conclusions would be already.

[McCulloch]

Moderator Warning
Please review our Rules.

Thanks your the second person on this thread that would like to help me understand which monkey is my great great granddaddy. A pic would be nice too.

The overriding principle on this forum is respect. Please show at least a minimum level of respect for the positions honestly held by others that you disagree with by at least representing their views honestly. By presenting a blatantly false strawman argument, you reveal to all your disrespect for their views.


______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Autodidact]

Also note, Deadclown and lastcallhall, that I did not make the affirmative claim. I did not barge into the thread and start boasting about how lesbians are better parents than straight people. lastcallhall made an affirmative statement, unsupported by any evidence whatsoever, that children are better off with a mom and dad than they are with two moms. The burden is on him to produce those well-constructed studies using sound methodology that support his statement. He cannot, because it is false.

That's fine, everyone makes mistakes. I would just like him to acknowledge his error, retract his false assertion, and most importantly, stop irresponsibly spreading misinformation around the internet.

[Deadclown]

Also not, Deadclown and lastcallhall, that I did not make the affirmative claim. I did not barge into the thread and start boasting about how lesbians are better parents than straight people. lastcallhall made an affirmative statement, unsupported by any evidence whatsoever, that children are better off with a mom and dad than they are with two moms. The burden is on him to produce those well-constructed studies using sound methodology that support his statement. He cannot, because it is false.

That's fine, everyone makes mistakes. I would just like him to acknowledge his error, retract his false assertion, and most importantly, stop irresponsibly spreading misinformation around the internet.

Absolutely Autodidact, and I was very clear to note as much in my dissections of your sources and supporting evidence, since it is an extremely important point. Again, thank you a great deal for providing those studies. As you say, the burden of proof was on lastcallhall. Sometimes I tend to focus on that and point out the wrong of making bold claims without evidence. Especially claims like this one that are blatantly false and hateful. It usually is just better to overwhelm the opponent with strong contradictory evidence, as you have done here.

I earnestly hope that he takes your advice and apologizes to you.

[Autodidact]

The Child Welfare League of America (CWLA) affirms that lesbian, gay, and bisexual parents are as well suited to raise children as their heterosexual counterparts.
Child Welfare League of America

The American Academy of Pediatrics recognizes that a considerable body of professional literature provides evidence that children with parents who are homosexual can have the same advantages and the same expectations for health, adjustment, and development, as can children whose parents are heterosexual.
American Academy of Pediatrics

Numerous studies have shown that the children of gay parents are as likely to be healthy and well adjusted as children raised in heterosexual households.
American Psychiatric Association

"The results of existing research comparing gay and lesbian parents to heterosexual parents and children of gay or lesbian parents to children of heterosexual parents are quite uniform: common stereotypes are not supported by the data... In summary, there is no evidence to suggest that lesbians and gay men are unfit to be parents or that psycho-social development among children of gay men and lesbians is compromised in any respect relevant to that among offspring of heterosexual parents. Not a single study has found children of gay or lesbian parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents. Indeed, the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by gay and lesbian parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children's psycho-social growth."
American Psychological Association

Scientific research has consistently found that the sexual orientation of parents is not a predictive factor as to the parenting ability of those parents or the psychological and social development of their children.
American Association of Social Workers

[S]ocial science research concludes that children reared by gay and lesbian parents fare comparably to those of children raised by heterosexuals on a range of measures of social and psychological adjustment.
Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute

The State of Connecticut, Department of Children and Families (DCF) affirms that lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) parents are as well suited to raise children as their heterosexual counterparts.
Connecticut DCF

There is no evidence to suggest or support that parents with a gay, lesbian, or bisexual orientation are per se different from or deficient in parenting skills, child-centered concerns and parent-child attachments, when compared to parents with a heterosexual orientation.
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry


t is the policy of the National Adoption Center that no person should be denied consideration in the adoption process solely based on marital status, sexual orientation, lifestyle, disability, physical appearance, race, gender, age, religion and/or size of family.
National Adoption Center

Not a single study has found children of gay or lesbian parents to be
disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents. Indeed, the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by gay and lesbian parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable childrens psychosocial growth. American
Psychological Association, Lesbian and Gay Parenting: A Resource for Psychologists 8 (1995).

This is why I can predict with confidence that lastcallhall will not be able to produce such a study. There aren't any, because it is simply not the case.

[lastcallhall]

1. Again you are factually mistaken. The New York state legislature just approved same-sex marriage.

No I am not wrong I said people, this is the legislature. Popular vote has gone my way every time.

2. Not that it matters. The Southern United States unanimously approved slavery, and then segregation, and it was oppression.

Not the same thing, you can't not be black you can not live the gay lifestyle. They kept blacks out of restaurants, you can eat and do as you please.

If you agree to keep your superstitious ones away from mine, we have a deal. By the way, the name for that deal is secularism.

Sure, the church is not allowed in your schools already

Can you make an argument for your position, rather than a mere assertion? If not, you're preaching. Is that allowed in forum rules?

That my friend was not preachin, I love to preach and that was not it

This demonstrates the potential harm of your views; this would be very painful to all of you, and is completely unnecessary.

The only harm comes if they die in their sin

O.K., so you're interested in a thread to discuss whether the theory of evolution is correct or not? Sorry, I'm a newbie here, where should I start it, in Science and Religion, or somewhere else?

science and religion work for me

[lastcallhall]

You are perfectly entitled to believe this and live by it. You have no right to impose your religious belief system on anyone else.

Nor you your views in a public school but they are trying anyway

If they do, then they're not Atheists, are they? I don't know if you're words are intentional or just careless, but you are making false statements about other people. Is that a sin?

No I am not, many atheists have said if the christian God exists they would hate him. Put up a poll on this site I bet a few may say that. Maybe not but how can you call me a liar? Do you speak to the same people I do?

[lastcallhall]

You have yet to present a single scientific article supporting your position.

Your proof is not my proof, sorry

You are entitled to your opinion;

thank you

you are not entitled to your own facts. Deliberately making up false facts and presenting them as if true is called lying.

I did NO such thing, you just reject the article I have put up. Fine, but don't call me a liar. I don't care what nice name a group makes up to sound unbiased but I reject your peer reviewed articles. They are people with the same political bend, IMO (must add to make sure people know it is only an opinion and in no way meant to be rock solid fact) and tell each other what will get them tenure.

When those facts are slurs on innocent groups of people to which you do not belong, it's morally wrong.

All I am doing is defending christianity and calling a sin, sin

I would appreciate it if you would stop contributing to prejudice, bigotry and discrimination against me by spreading lies about a group to which I do belong. Thank you.

I have done no such thing

[lastcallhall]

OK, just to clarify, you agree that your God is offensive, that citing Him in this instance is offensive, and that you have violated forum rules by being deliberately offensive; is that right?

I gave the quote and again so everyone hears I am very, truly sorry if I called anyone a fool. It was a mistake if it happened or if the perception was there, I am sorry.