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]

Why are they still around then? There are many success stories.

The Skin-Head Nazis are still around. So? What does that say? Does that make them any more acceptable? I dare say not. Perhaps to you, certainly not to me. I am sane!! So popular acceptance of something makes it true, and it's consequences acceptable? Really? When popular sentiment says Christians should be burned at the stake as inhuman, ignorant, idiots, will you still believe in popular acceptance?

Alan Chambers is one of the leading international speakers on gender issues and is the president of the largest evangelical organization dealing with homosexuality in the world today ...

So? And David Duke is the leading international speaker of the largest raciest Ku Klux Klan faction in the U.S. Does that make his views acceptable, do you believe him because of his position? You likely do, as he is rabidly anti-gay also. Birds of a feather!!

" Exodus International. His personal story as a gay teen and young adult who overcame unwanted homosexuality has inspired audiences around the world.

So did Mussolini and Hitler. Will you give them the same reverence credibility and respect because they inspired millions? Is that your criteria for acceptability? Are you serious?

Alan is a frequent guest on media outlets around the world and has been interviewed by the BBC

So has Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. So that makes what he has to say valid and correct? You believe his lies and distortions because he has been interviewed on the BBC? Are you being serious? I hope not. Otherwise you are a worse enemy of the people, freedom, and sanity than I believe you are.

Here are my verses.

Genesis 2:24
New King James Version (NKJV)
24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.

Do you understand English? I asked you to quote biblical verses stating that a man and a woman is a better parenting pair than two men or two women. You failed to answer the question. I can only conclude that you are grasping at straws and have no real answer.

Ephesians 5:31
New King James Version (NKJV) ......

31 For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.[a]

If a father is dead, and a child is brought up by a mother and a grandmother? Where in the bible does it state this is not as good as a father and Mother?

There verses tell me the homosexual lifestyle is sin and if two people are living in sin it can't be a good environment for the child.

Forget about your homophobia and hate for now. What I want to see from you is scriptural proof (I'll bet you can't provide any at all) that male-female parentage is required for proper rearing of children. One step at a time for baby brains.

We can deal with your bigotry in a separate post. For now, please provide proof that a male-female parentage is biblically required for proper parentage. That should be simple enough for you to do. If not retract!

Bob

[McCulloch]

Success is finding Jesus and following him, getting married, having kids, and teaching them to love the Lord is a wonderful thing.

Paul disagreed, but that is besides the point.

According to this argument, since success is defined by Lastcallhall's religion, the State should do what it can to support (establish?) that religion and discourage homosexuality. After all, homosexuality has a negative correlation with evangelical Christianity.

I think I understand you.

[lastcallhall]

The Skin-Head Nazis are still around. So? What does that say? Does that make them any more acceptable? I dare say not. Perhaps to you, certainly not to me. I am sane!! So popular acceptance of something makes it true, and it's consequences acceptable? Really? When popular sentiment says Christians should be burned at the stake as inhuman, ignorant, idiots, will you still believe in popular acceptance?

That was not my point. The point I was making is you dismiss the company now because two of the people that founded the company have left and now speak against it. So from now on they can't be looked to for any sort of creditable proof.

So? And David Duke is the leading international speaker of the largest raciest Ku Klux Klan faction in the U.S. Does that make his views acceptable, do you believe him because of his position? You likely do, as he is rabidly anti-gay also. Birds of a feather!!

Not at all but again I am just showing you that your position with Exodus is no longer objective. You paint me a certain way and go ahead.

So did Mussolini and Hitler. Will you give them the same reverence credibility and respect because they inspired millions? Is that your criteria for acceptability? Are you serious?

Just giving an example of the program working for someone, nothing more

So that makes what he has to say valid and correct?

No but it doesn't make him wrong either

You believe his lies and distortions because he has been interviewed on the BBC?

No, I believe him because what he says conforms to the Bible

Are you being serious? I hope not. Otherwise you are a worse enemy of the people, freedom, and sanity than I believe you are.

A pretty bold statement, I don't see it that way but hey who I am to know my own heart.

Do you understand English? I asked you to quote biblical verses stating that a man and a woman is a better parenting pair than two men or two women. You failed to answer the question. I can only conclude that you are grasping at straws and have no real answer.


Forget about your homophobia and hate for now. What I want to see from you is scriptural proof (I'll bet you can't provide any at all) that male-female parentage is required for proper rearing of children. One step at a time for baby brains.

I just did, I laid out my Biblical proof. I first showed where the Bible says men will join woman in marriage, then I showed that God is against the homosexual lifestyle. Now that I have shown the Bible views the homosexual lifestyle as sin how can it possibly be good for a child to be around open sin against God? I have proven my point, reject it if you wish.

We can deal with your bigotry in a separate post. For now, please provide proof that a male-female parentage is biblically required for proper parentage. That should be simple enough for you to do. If not retract!

Bob

I just did give you proof

[lastcallhall]

According to this argument, since success is defined by Lastcallhall's religion, the State should do what it can to support (establish?) that religion and discourage homosexuality. After all, homosexuality has a negative correlation with evangelical Christianity.

No I am fine with the state doing what they do now but the laws are being pushed to accept this lifestyle and that is my problem. I know we disagree on this but I feel, with the article from CA about muslim prayers, that this will be forced onto my kids and eventually the church.

I think I understand you.

I do not try to hide at all who I am

[Autodidact]

It is unsupported by the evidence. It's not that I don't agree, it's that it's false. There is not a single study, of the many studies that have been done in the last 30 years, that supports your assertion. Not one. Why do you think that is?

What I gave you are rebuts to your studies, they find many of the studies to be wrong.

Yes, you provided attempted critiques of all the studies that have been done to date, 100% of which support my position. (I don't understand why you bother, since you wouldn't accept the studies regardless of whether the methodology was perfect, but whatever.) That doesn't help you. I'm not making an assertion that I need studies to support--you are. What you need, and don't have, is a single study, every, anywhere, that compares the two groups and comes up with a result that supports your assertion. Until you do that, continuing to make the assertion is, at best, negligent.

I don't see what the problem is here, if you don't agree with the articles I have submitted its ok but I believe what they say because they back up what the Bible says and the Bible is truth.

thank you for clarifying your standard for a scientific result: that it conform to your preconceived position.

I don't know and I don't care. I don't care what you think what your views are, what news you watch or how you manage to sleep at night.

Why would you think I have a hard time sleeping? Because I don't fall in lock step with your views and you think I am hateful?

Because you hurt other people with your lies.

You don't know my heart and if I had hate in it God would not allow me to sleep well. The only time I have trouble sleeping is when my back goes out

I DON'T CARE ABOUT YOUR HEART. I care about your actions, which are dishonest and hurtful.
Here's a simple way to check: Would you like it if someone went around smearing you with no basis in fact?

What I care about is that your lies are harming my people. I understand that in your moral universe that's acceptable behavior, and everyone here who may have been considering following Jesus as you have done understands that as well.

In your view I am harming people but I am only telling them the truth.

But you're not, that's the problem. What you are saying does not match reality. For those of us who live in the reality-based community, we call that lying.

If you reject what I say why would what I say bother you?

Because other people, some of them policy-makers, might believe you and take actions that harm me and my family.

Following Jesus is a personal choice and only he can convict someone's heart to follow him.

Please, I beg of you, try to follow along here. We are not discussing following Jesus or what you think the Bible says. We are discussing a false factual assertion that you made: that children do better with a mom and dad than they do with two moms.

I don't care about your views or what shapes them.

You seem to care but I am glad you don't because I really don't want you to be upset.

I am upset, can't you tell? I'm very angry. I always get angry when people slander me. I hate prejudice, I late lies, and I hate slander.

What I care about is the facts, and whether you have stated them accurately, in other words, what most people call truth. You haven't, and you refuse to acknowledge that, even after having been shown that your statements are incorrect.

What is false?

What's wrong with you? How many times do I have to say this? It is false that children do better with a mom and dad than with two moms.

Here, let's try this another way: Specifically, in what way do children with a mom and dad do better than with two moms?

Yes, lies are dangerous weapons; be careful they don't cut both ways.

I know you think I am a liar because I don't have your views or agree with your studies.

I think you're a liar because you keep lying. Studies aren't something you agree with or not. They just are.

In any case, I don't have to defend any studies; you need to produce one. You can't. Until you do, it's reckless and immoral to keep stating something as fact with no basis other than your personal religious views.

I understand you don't think lying is wrong.

Really even though I believe Revelation when it says ALL liars will have their place in the lake of fire. I pray every night for God to forgive me foll all my sins known and unknown.

Good luck with that.

I understand you don't think prejudice is wrong. I understand you don't think harming entire groups of people you know nothing about is wrong. I understand all that, and so does everyone else in this thread.

I am glad you know my heart

All I know is what you've told us here.

So basically, when you said, "Children do better," what you meant is, "are raised consistent with my individual religious beliefs"?

That is true but it is also true that it is more healthy for a child to have a mother and a father so I believe both.

In what way is it more healthy, and on what basis do you make that statement?

I don't care what you believe; you obviously all sorts of things I find quite peculiar. We're not talking about your beliefs, we're talking about reality. You might believe it, but you have no basis for that belief, because it does not match reality.

I can understand why you would prefer not to deal with that uncomfortable fact, so you have to make false statements about reality. After all, if reality is as I describe (and it is) you might have to question your religious beliefs, and that's the last thing you want to do.

[Autodidact]

This is a good example of how science works, as opposed to a religious approach to knowledge. Science would say that lastcall has a hypothesis, which is that straight parents do a better job raising kids than gay parents. How can we figure out whether it's true? First, we come up with some way to measure how well kids turn out: Are they locked up for committing crimes? Do they graduate from high school? College? Do they breed children they can't take care of? Can they develop successful relationships? Do they participate in their community in a positive way? Are they happy? And so forth. Then we find a bunch of young adults raised by each group, and get this information on them. Then, without knowing which group is which, we see how they in fact turned out. Only after we get those results do we tabulate which ones were raised by which parents. That's to eliminate any bias the researchers might have either way. And what do we find out? They turn out much the same, with the latter group having a slight edge in a couple areas.

The religious approach is to decide what God decrees (regardless of what the holy book actually says) and therefore conclude in advance what must be the case, and decree that is reality, regardless of how the children actually turn out.

It's a whole different approach to truth for everything, not just gay families.

I agree to a point that I view success and healthy differently than you do. Success is finding Jesus and following him, getting married, having kids, and teaching them to love the Lord is a wonderful thing. The world views everyone is fine, there is no sin and as long as you are happy everything is good. We just have different views of success.

O.K., so when you said that one group of children does better, you meant they are more likely to find Jesus, get married, have kids and teach them to love Jesus. That's how you define success.

Would you agree that does not match with the general definition of that term? So how about you make yourself more clear, and next time, instead of claiming they "do better," you say, "are more likely to find Jesus, etc." Then people will understand you better, and not think you're just lying?

btw, do you have any statistics to support your assertion? Remember, most lesbian families, like most American families, are Christian. [please don't make us go around that circle again; you already agree with this statement.] They may not be your flavor of Christian, but they are in fact Christian.

So you would say that children of Jews, Atheists, Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists do not do as well as children of Christians? In your sense of the word? Do you think these people should have the right to marry? To adopt children? To full equality with Christian parents? Shouldn't you be directing your discrimination against them, rather than against Gay Christians?

[Autodidact]

In view of the above, do you still want to use these folks as the prime evidence for your statements? Please justify your sourcing Exodus Internationale's "beliefs" as a scientifically valid study.

There are people that will leave places all the time. Because they left does not make the ministry wrong or less valuable. If anyone has been abused or raped the person should file charges and send the other person to jail for a LONG time.

If this is the most credible source you can come up with to support your views, one must seriously question your motives as well as your beliefs.

Bob

Please don't question my motives or beliefs, I don't question yours or anyone elses. I have worked with the group and they are top notch. There are bad people in all walks of life and they in no way invalidate this ministry.

I'm fascinated. Exactly what work did you do with Exodus International, that well-known collection of frauds and liars?

Here's the thing: they never do follow-up studies of people they claim to have "cured." Why? Because it would reveal the facts: it doesn't work. They don't cure people, any more than the people who have left the group were cured. Homosexuality isn't a disease, and no amount of therapy "cures" it.

In any case, their success or failure has no relevance to our present discussion.

[Autodidact]

Not just anybody, but the founders themselves along with the director denounced the group as pushing ideas and methods which are untrue and unworkable. The APA along with every study on the matter has debunked these people.

Why are they still around then?

Please tell me you're kidding. Are you seriously trying to argue that every group that exists is therefore correct?!? I again suggest you read a book, or take a class, or somehow learn the most common logical fallacies. Until you do that, your posts tend to not make very much sense. This one is called special pleading.

There are many success stories.

There are many, many more failure stories. Or don't you count them?

[Autodidact]

The Skin-Head Nazis are still around. So? What does that say? Does that make them any more acceptable? I dare say not. Perhaps to you, certainly not to me. I am sane!! So popular acceptance of something makes it true, and it's consequences acceptable? Really? When popular sentiment says Christians should be burned at the stake as inhuman, ignorant, idiots, will you still believe in popular acceptance?

That was not my point. The point I was making is you dismiss the company now because two of the people that founded the company have left and now speak against it. So from now on they can't be looked to for any sort of creditable proof

. I dismiss them because, like you, they make statements that are not true. They do it constantly. This has been repeatedly shown. Would you like me to show you their statements that do not conform with the facts? If I do, will it have any affect whatsoever on your opinoni?

So? And David Duke is the leading international speaker of the largest raciest Ku Klux Klan faction in the U.S. Does that make his views acceptable, do you believe him because of his position? You likely do, as he is rabidly anti-gay also. Birds of a feather!!

Not at all but again I am just showing you that your position with Exodus is no longer objective. You paint me a certain way and go ahead.

So did Mussolini and Hitler. Will you give them the same reverence credibility and respect because they inspired millions? Is that your criteria for acceptability? Are you serious?

Just giving an example of the program working for someone, nothing more

So that makes what he has to say valid and correct?

No but it doesn't make him wrong either

You believe his lies and distortions because he has been interviewed on the BBC?

No, I believe him because what he says conforms to the Bible

Are you being serious? I hope not. Otherwise you are a worse enemy of the people, freedom, and sanity than I believe you are.

A pretty bold statement, I don't see it that way but hey who I am to know my own heart.

Do you understand English? I asked you to quote biblical verses stating that a man and a woman is a better parenting pair than two men or two women. You failed to answer the question. I can only conclude that you are grasping at straws and have no real answer.


Forget about your homophobia and hate for now. What I want to see from you is scriptural proof (I'll bet you can't provide any at all) that male-female parentage is required for proper rearing of children. One step at a time for baby brains.

I just did, I laid out my Biblical proof. I first showed where the Bible says men will join woman in marriage, then I showed that God is against the homosexual lifestyle. Now that I have shown the Bible views the homosexual lifestyle as sin how can it possibly be good for a child to be around open sin against God? I have proven my point, reject it if you wish.

O.K. so we agree that, contrary to your statement, the Bible says nothing at all about gay parenting, correct?

[micatala]

It is unsupported by the evidence. It's not that I don't agree, it's that it's false. There is not a single study, of the many studies that have been done in the last 30 years, that supports your assertion. Not one. Why do you think that is?

What I gave you are rebuts to your studies, they find many of the studies to be wrong.

Yes, you provided attempted critiques of all the studies that have been done to date, 100% of which support my position. (I don't understand why you bother, since you wouldn't accept the studies regardless of whether the methodology was perfect, but whatever.) That doesn't help you. I'm not making an assertion that I need studies to support--you are. What you need, and don't have, is a single study, every, anywhere, that compares the two groups and comes up with a result that supports your assertion. Until you do that, continuing to make the assertion is, at best, negligent.

I don't see what the problem is here, if you don't agree with the articles I have submitted its ok but I believe what they say because they back up what the Bible says and the Bible is truth.

thank you for clarifying your standard for a scientific result: that it conform to your preconceived position.

I don't know and I don't care. I don't care what you think what your views are, what news you watch or how you manage to sleep at night.

Why would you think I have a hard time sleeping? Because I don't fall in lock step with your views and you think I am hateful?

Because you hurt other people with your lies.

You don't know my heart and if I had hate in it God would not allow me to sleep well. The only time I have trouble sleeping is when my back goes out

I DON'T CARE ABOUT YOUR HEART. I care about your actions, which are dishonest and hurtful.
Here's a simple way to check: Would you like it if someone went around smearing you with no basis in fact?

What I care about is that your lies are harming my people. I understand that in your moral universe that's acceptable behavior, and everyone here who may have been considering following Jesus as you have done understands that as well.

In your view I am harming people but I am only telling them the truth.

But you're not, that's the problem. What you are saying does not match reality. For those of us who live in the reality-based community, we call that lying.

If you reject what I say why would what I say bother you?

Because other people, some of them policy-makers, might believe you and take actions that harm me and my family.

Following Jesus is a personal choice and only he can convict someone's heart to follow him.

Please, I beg of you, try to follow along here. We are not discussing following Jesus or what you think the Bible says. We are discussing a false factual assertion that you made: that children do better with a mom and dad than they do with two moms.

I don't care about your views or what shapes them.

You seem to care but I am glad you don't because I really don't want you to be upset.

I am upset, can't you tell? I'm very angry. I always get angry when people slander me. I hate prejudice, I late lies, and I hate slander.

What I care about is the facts, and whether you have stated them accurately, in other words, what most people call truth. You haven't, and you refuse to acknowledge that, even after having been shown that your statements are incorrect.

What is false?

What's wrong with you? How many times do I have to say this? It is false that children do better with a mom and dad than with two moms.

Here, let's try this another way: Specifically, in what way do children with a mom and dad do better than with two moms?

Yes, lies are dangerous weapons; be careful they don't cut both ways.

I know you think I am a liar because I don't have your views or agree with your studies.

I think you're a liar because you keep lying. Studies aren't something you agree with or not. They just are.

In any case, I don't have to defend any studies; you need to produce one. You can't. Until you do, it's reckless and immoral to keep stating something as fact with no basis other than your personal religious views.

I understand you don't think lying is wrong.

Really even though I believe Revelation when it says ALL liars will have their place in the lake of fire. I pray every night for God to forgive me foll all my sins known and unknown.

Good luck with that.

Moderator Intervention


Avoid accusations of lying or asserting someone is a liar.

You may certainly make the case that a members statements are false or not based in reality. You may certainly point out instances of a member repeatedly ignoring evidence or making assertions at odds with the evidence.

However, we ask that you do that without making accusations of lying.



Rules
C&A Guidelines


______________

Moderator interventions do not count as a strike against any posters. They are given at the discretion of a moderator when he or she feels that some sort of intervention is required.