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]

Please just try for a moment to put yourself in the other group's position. If you could *prove* the truth of your words with evidence and logic then it wouldn't be so needlessly hurtful.

I understand your point but you really miss mine. My truth is the Bible that is the beginning and the end. I find people who stand on the Bible and value their opinion but it all rests with the Bible. I speak what I feel is God's truth and I am truly sorry if it offends anyone but the truth does hurt at times.

Nowhere in the Bible are any of the following prohibited:
lesbianism
lesbian sex
lesbian marriage
lesbian parenting.
So no, you are not speaking God's truth. As so often happens, your Bible doesn't mean what it says, it says what you mean. In any case, why would your religious belief be accorded any special deference, as opposed to the millions of other people who have other religious beliefs? How about if we try to find some objective truth, based in fact, that we can all agree on, instead of just competing religious beliefs?

You are correct that debates on this site do not allow you to use the Bible as your sole justification. Any more than I can quote from the FSM Bible, like it actually makes a point, or quote from Harry Potter to prove that magic exists. You need other supporting information. If you are unwilling or unable to provide it, then indeed, you should cease trying to debate the point with me here.

Then we are done my friend I will always go back to the Bible

O.K. then bye, you lose. How about then, if instead of announcing it as truth, since it's a truth only the few people who share your religious beliefs would accept as truth, you state it as your faith or your belief. That would at least be honest.

I have provided articles and Bible verses and if it is not proof enough again we need to quit. I am sorry if you do not like how I debate or what I use as truth.

First, your Bible verses are useless. You are making a factual claim about real people in the real world, which has nothing to do with Bible verses. Second, you provided an article. One guy's opinion. Why would we give it any regard. What you have not provided is a single scientific source. Not one. So, again, to be honest, I guess you could say, "Every research study ever done finds the opposite of what I'm saying, but I believe it any way." Again, that would be honest.

I concede nothing, my views are the same and I feel as strong as I did when we started.

It is your perfect right to believe whatever you like, for whatever reason you like. But when you start making assertions of fact about other people, it's your responsibility to make sure they are correct. Yours was not. That is not alright, in fact, it's wrong, and I think in your heart you understand that.

Suppose I say, "Christians are all baby murderers." You say, "No they're not. You can't find a single case of that." [Actually, several come to mind, but setting that aside.] I say, nevertheless I believe it, it's my belief, so it's o.k. for me to say that. No, it's not. It's irresponsible and reprehensible, and not the right way to treat other people.

[lastcallhall]

It's playing out that you may have some bigoted hateful views against a certain minority

In your opinion, I find your view to be more hateful as if people listen to your view they would be destined for hell. I try to speak the truth and unless you know my heart, you would have to be God, how can you POSSIBLY know if I hate anyone? You can continue to paint me in that light but it will not stop me from preaching God's word, sorry.

and when your source is shown to be crap and others shown to be good that counter what you claim, I'm truly amazed that this is the best you can come up with?

I am sorry if I can't meet your standards

One side has qualified people, the other not. Throw critical thinking right out the window and go la la la, god is on my side, so I am justified having my hate filled speech because I am actually just hating the sin, not the people I often compare with pedophiles.

And you discount anyones opinion if they work for a christian organization. I compare nobody to pedophiles.

I find it truly amazing.

I agree

I have asked you this on more than one occasion...
Could you walk into a gay bar, look at the men dancing on the stage and "choose" to get an erection?

No you have not but I can answer 100% there is no chance I would get sexually aroused. I think the male body is hairy and disgusting so again 0.0% chance I would be aroused. Thinking about it you could not even get me into the bar I do not like to be around that sort of "partying"

[McCulloch]

A position which flies in the face of evidence. A position which insults the integrity and ability of an identified group of people, on the basis of ancient prejudice

Evidence from your point of view, so none of my evidence counts because it is not peer reviewed or they are a christian? By your logic they are not biased either so we should be able to listen to them too.

The purpose of review is to test the claims made in a published paper by challenging them. The reason for peer review, is that for many subjects, the complexity and depth of the subject material requires someone who is already an expert to be able to assess the validity of the claims being made. One other purpose of review, is to ensure that the evidence is not subjective, but is as objective as possible. Unlike lastcallhall, these people make an effort to remove bias from their research. They have techniques that they can use to systematically remove or reduce the bias.

So on one hand we have numerous research papers, done statistically regorously and reviewed by those who are experts in this kind of analysis. They have objective facts to back up their conclusions. On the other hand, we have lastcallhall who has the evidence of the Bible, an ancient collection of religious writings containing tales of talking animals, and teaches that nature itself teaches that it is morally wrong for a man to have long hair. (1 Cor 11:14) This is beginning to look a lot like the debate over the heliocentric model. Copernicus and Galileo arguing from the facts and the evidence that the planets, including Earth, revolve about the sun and the Church arguing from the Bible that the Sun revolved about the Earth.

I'm not asking lastcallhall to be convinced by evidence nor to give up his prejudiced view. I'm just asking that he recognize that his view is not the one taken by a reasonable or rational person.

[Autodidact]

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?

But since we don't believe He does, we don't, do we? Your statement was FALSE. I am getting pretty tired of you making false statements about me.

Listen, you don't believe Allah exists, and millions of people believe Allah is God, so does that make you a God-hater? No, it does not, and it would not be nice for me to call you that. Now would you be so kind as to extend the same courtesy to others as you expect for yourself? Thank you.

[lastcallhall]

This sentence will have the same logical validity if we place "Qur'an" or "Mormon's book" or even "The Lord of the Rings". Don't tell us who is right, tell us why they are right.

I have started to in a thread started by McCulloch

Valuing people over ideas is what always precedes a very faulty logic and the mindset required for ad homines. Many religious people know how to value things for their intrinsic properties and not commit such a fallacy - and they accept evolution. If I remember correctly you have a poor opinion of the Pope, but I'm sure many non-Catholic Christians are also evolutionists.

I don't have a poor opinion of the Pope, I just don't buy into many of the Catholic traditions. I know there are many people that buy into evolution but my guess is they are not fundamentalists. It is fine with me but I just don't see it.

It's irrational not to consider something because it goes against some prejudice. Things are what they are, not what we wish them to be. That is how the world works, and why wishful thinking doesn't work.

Ok, how do you explain that no state when put to popular vote has voted to allow gay marriage? Most people still believe in the Bible, IMO.

Unless you can demonstrate first that the Bible is right itself, all we have is an incomplete compass without a fixed North. You could be walking to the East and you'd not know or care with this reasoning - because you've already arbitrarily assigned a North without any kind of justification, and you seem to have closed yourself to any further inquiry.

I see your point and don't totally disagree because I don't think the truth changes just because society does.

[Autodidact]

Have you found a single scientific survey to support your assertion that children do better with a mom and dad than they do with two moms? That would be a study that compares the two groups, don't you agree?

I gave you an article that I find as true and could give you many, many more. You can refect them all because you don't like the group they belong to but I don't like your members of science so we are at a stand still.

So I take it that you cannot find any such study? And you reject science as a way of learning about the world, preferring to get your knowledge from your ancient holy book? Yes, you're right, we're at a standstill. We agree that science supports my position, and those who accept science agree with me. Those who reject science, like you, disagree.

By the way, do you reject all science, or only when it conflicts with your religious beliefs?

Is the world round? How do you know?
When you're sick, do you go to a doctor, or do you get by on prayer?
Do you use a computer, or continue to write on papyrus and parchment with a quill?

I can find you many, many studies that have shown exactly the opposite; just ask.

No need I do not question that you could provide them

O.K., I won't bother, since you reject them in advance, regardless of how sound their methodology is.

If you can, I will be happy to stand corrected. If you can't, will you stop spreading vicious lies about me? I would appreciate it.

I tell no lies, I stand on God's word

God said that children with two moms do worse than children with a mom and dad? Would you cite the verse where He says that?

Parenting is a difficult and important job.

Yes it is

Thousands of lesbian parents work hard at it and do an excellent job, often with children born to heterosexuals who failed at it. We're willing to do it and find it rewarding. We're not willing for people to discredit our efforts. I would appreciate it if you would do the decent thing and stop. Thank you.

I don't see why my opinion matters at all to you? If you reject what the Bible says I don't have much else I will argue with you about. Believe me or not I don't hate anyone nor see myself as better than anybody else, I am the worst sinner of them all and I know it. But to pretend something is not sin I won't do. I am sorry if it offends you.

It has nothing to do with sin. No one is talking about sin. We're talking about how well children turn out. Are they productive members of society? Do they stay out of jail, not have babies until they're ready, get jobs and contribute to their communities. These are objective standards we can all agree on. By any such standard, children of lesbian parents do AT LEAST as well as children of heterosexual parents. That is the fact. If you persist in saying the contrary, at this point, you are deliberately choosing falsehood over fact. What does your religion say about telling lies about other people, lies that harm them?

As for your opinion and why I care, do you vote?
What I really dislike is people spreading this slander around the internet. I value my honor and my perception in the community, and I take offense at people who besmirch it with no basis. I have devoted my life to raising my children, including the youngest one, adopted because her irresponsible heterosexual parents did not take proper care of her. It's hard, very hard. And when people start saying I'm not doing a good job, based on nothing but prejudice, without knowing or caring about the facts, yes, I get quite angry.

I know many Christians find this hard, but try to do unto others as you would have them do to you. Do you like people telling vicious lies about you? How would you like it if I went around the internet telling people that Christians make lousy parents, and should not be allowed to adopt children because of it?

[Autodidact]

"Children growing up in same-sex parental households do not necessarily

They don't even say it with any authority.

They don't have to. You are the one who made an affirmative claim. You are the one who needs to find sources that agree with you with authority. You can't even find a single study to support your lies, and you're criticizing the studies that find the opposite because, like all scientific studies, they use cautious language?

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

I never doubted you could pull up many people that agree with you but unfortunately God does not so I still side with him. I am sorry but we just view proof as two totally different things.

side with whom you like. Believe what you like. Just preface your statements with, "I believe," instead of presenting them as fact, which they are not.

They're not just people, by the way. They're organizations who are devoted to protecting children and keeping them healthy and safe, and they all say you're wrong. That's because you're wrong.

Again, you can take issue with the AMA, APA, every adoption and child health agency. But to be honest, you should say so. ""Although every known child welfare agency thinks gay and lesbian parents do a fine job, I disagree because that's my religious belief." But just saying we don't is reckless libel.

[lastcallhall]

Your claim once again is false, I base this on the fact that the bible can be interpreted to say all sorts of things that are not in agreement. It is not god telling you are anyone else anything, that claim is a lie and you only use it to justify your horrible behavior. If it was, we would not have the issue that we have now of all the different opinions about what god wants, hates, loves ect...

No, it does not make me wrong it shows that people can view the same thing with a different story. Example, it might be bad but, a Braves fan will say Sid Bream was safe in the NLCS in game 7 to win the game. A Pirates fan will swear he was tagged out. Both feel they are right but only one can be. There is only one truth and of course I believe I have found it. After reading God's word it seems clear to me the homosexual lifestyle is sin.

Since you cannot prove that your personal opinion of a god is the true one, I must consider your words for what they seem to be... bigoted and hate filled.

I am sorry you feel that way but please prove that you know my heart that I hate anyone

Personally, I think Jesus would be ashamed of you. But by all means, continue your evil works, because that apparently is what your god wants.

Fair enough, I live my life to please Jesus and follow his word. You don't see me doing a good job and that is ok with me. I will stand before Jesus one day and answer for my actions and I can say I feel good about how that conversation will go as I try to warn many people of what the Bible calls sin, not just this one.

[Autodidact]

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.

I could get many people who disagree with both of you, how can you say you are right?

Especially claims like this one that are blatantly false and hateful.

The Bible says I am right nor are the claims hateful. Why is calling something sin hateful if you don't believe in God anyways?

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

I have done nothing wrong except give my position

We're not talking about sin. We're talking about child welfare and effective parenting. Surely you don't think you have the right to impose your religious beliefs on my parenting? You have done something very wrong. You have made detrimental false statements about an entire group of people. That's known as bigotry, as well as dishonesty, and I think it's wrong. But then, I'm not Christian, your moral system may allow you to make bigoted false statements like that. Does it?

[Autodidact]

God told you? This is an amazing claim. lastcallhall knows the mind of God!

Not directly but he has told all of us his will through the Bible.

First of all, not all of us believe that, so it's oppressive to try to impose it on the rest of us. Second, most Christians do not agree with your interpretation of the Bible. Third, where in the Bible does it say that children with two moms don't do as well as children with a mom and dad? I can't find that passage.

Let me say what I think would be a more accurate statement of your claim. There are many people who agree with Autodidact. Their studies have been thoroughly reviewed and tested. But lastcallhall disagrees with the evidence because it disagrees with his reading of the Bible which he holds to be the Word of God. And even though he may have used reason, logic and evidence to conclude that the Bible is the Word of God, he will not accept reason, logic and evidence to support any idea which contradicts his a priori unquestioning allegiance to the Bible.

I agree with much of what McCulloch said here but I think that to accept evidence it has to come from a person who knows the Bible and loves the Lord. I think we all have our biases but if you are secular your opinion will follow that line of logic. I want someone to show me using the Bible something is right or wrong.

Try to stay on point. We're not talking about Biblical morality. We're talking about child welfare.

The people who agree with Autodidact are not just any old people. These are people who can present good reasons to believe them. They have used the best available methods to validate their research. How many people with the academic standing of those presented by Autodidact can you present who disagree?

Again most of them, IMO, are secular liberals. If that is your political and religious bend your work will reflect that. Of course their studies will show what a secular society wants with no regard for God or the Bible. I don't expect them to include the Bible in the study but you can't expect me to accept their point of view.

You have no idea who they are. They are the mainstream, overwhelming majority of doctors, social workers, psychologists and adoption experts in our country. You have a tendency to judge people based on stereotypes and prejudice. Didn't your mother teach you better than that?

I'm not asking you to accept their view. I'm asking you to stop making false statements about me. You may not like the facts; they're still the facts.

A position which flies in the face of evidence. A position which insults the integrity and ability of an identified group of people, on the basis of ancient prejudice

Evidence from your point of view, so none of my evidence counts because it is not peer reviewed or they are a christian? By your logic they are not biased either so we should be able to listen to them too.

You haven't presented any evidence yet. You can't, because there isn't any, because your statement was false.

I know it's hard to admit error. Think of it as practice in humility, which is good for you.