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]

I'm sorry. lastcall's assertions are false, they have no basis in reality, that has been shown to him precisely, and yet he persists in making them.

Further, lastcall continues to make these demonstrably false generalizations about an entire group of people, based on nothing more than his own prejudice.

[lastcallhall]

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.

Ok give me the best study you have and I will look at who wrote it and what they come up with. I will look at how they view success in life and see what I think. I hope this is fair.

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?

First, IMO, you should always check someones heart, that is the first thing I try to find out. My guess is you have a good heart and I honestly would have your same views if I was you. I do not smear any one person only a lifestyle. I know it is a fine line but I will never try to attack a person (I know that I have but I try not too)

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.

In your view I am wrong and lying, I could get a thousand people from my church that would say I am telling the truth

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

I doubt anyone of importance would care at all what I think

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.

I have not slandered you personally and I do not hate you. Please don't get upset and understand that I only speak about this to bring people to the saving grace of Jesus, nothing more nothing less.

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

In my opinion and my opinion only you need the influence of a mother and a father. I can't teach my daughters the things my wife can and she can't show them things I can. IMO girls need a strong male influence that shows them what love between a husband and wife should be that will shape who they marry. Parents have so much influence with kids and if you don't show regard for God's laws your children have a good chance of disregarding them as well.

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.

Not reckless or immoral because I base EVERYTHING on the Bible not just this subject. Example a friend of mine came to town with his girlfriend to stay with us for the weekend, they have no problem with pre martial sex. I do not say anything to him outside of he knows my views but when they stayed at my house they slept in separate rooms. The only reason I had them do that is to honor God.

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

When I say healthy I mean mental health. They are exposed to a mom and a dad, hopefully loving on each other and that will give them a good view of both men and women.

[lastcallhall]

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.

Yes

Would you agree that does not match with the general definition of that term?

I know it does not match the worlds view. The world values money, success, and fame. There is nothing wrong with those things but if you loose your soul it was not worth it.

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?

I am sorry if I was not clear and I hope this clears up some of our confusion.

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.

What assertion do you want me to backup with stats?

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?

In my sense no, but they are functional happy members of society. I think everyone would function better with a relationship with Jesus.

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?

Any man and woman should be able to marry and adopt kids. Gays are two men or two woman and I won't endorse something the Bible calls sin. If the law changes it does but it will not change my view.

[Autodidact]

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.

Ok give me the best study you have and I will look at who wrote it and what they come up with. I will look at how they view success in life and see what I think. I hope this is fair.

1. Not really. You made the assertion; the burden is on you to cite a study that supports your assertion. If you cannot, then you should admit that. One of the aggravating things about talking with you is the need to repeat the same things over and over. I would appreciate it if you would try to grasp what I am saying the second or third time, rather than the 4th or 5th, thanks.
2. I don't know which is the best study. The main point is that each and every study ever done finds the same result, which should tell you something.

Here's one:

One such study, published in Child Development (Vol. 75, No. 6, pages 1,886-1,898) in 2004, compares a group of 44 teenagers with same-sex couples as parents with an equal number of teenagers with opposite-sex couples as parents. All participants were part of a national, randomly selected sample of teenagers from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health.

"There were very few group differences between the kids who had been brought up by same- or opposite-sex parents," says Patterson, who conducted the research with students Jennifer Wainright and Stephen Russell, PhD, now an associate professor of sociology at the University of Arizona. One group difference that Patterson was surprised to find: Children of gay and lesbian parents reported closer ties with their schools and classmates. However, says Patterson, the difference was small and needs to be studied further.

Here's another:

US National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study: Psychological Adjustment of 17-Year-Old Adolescents, Nanette Gartrell and Henny Bos
Pediatrics 2010;126;28; originally published online June 7, 2010;
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/c ... .full.html

Take your pick.

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?

First, IMO, you should always check someones heart, that is the first thing I try to find out. My guess is you have a good heart and I honestly would have your same views if I was you. I do not smear any one person only a lifestyle. I know it is a fine line but I will never try to attack a person (I know that I have but I try not too)

So you don't considering bad-mouthing an entire group to be attacking then?

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.

In your view I am wrong and lying, I could get a thousand people from my church that would say I am telling the truth

And they'd all be wrong, because they are not basing their views on the facts. Fallacy ad populum. You really do need to learn those fallacies; you're undermining yourself.

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

I doubt anyone of importance would care at all what I think

People read stuff over and over on the internet and assume there must be something to it.

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.

I have not slandered you personally and I do not hate you

. I DON'T CARE WHO YOU HATE OR DON'T HATE. Please don't make me repeat this. You have slandered a group to which I belong.

Please don't get upset and understand that I only speak about this to bring people to the saving grace of Jesus, nothing more nothing less.

I don't care what your motive is; making false defamatory statements is wrong. If you do it because of your religion, it's a strike against your religion. You might want to take that into consideration.

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

In my opinion and my opinion only you need the influence of a mother and a father.

At least you're now willing to qualify this statement as being your opinion only. I would appreciate it if you continue to qualify your baseless, unsupported opinions in this way. Now, why would we give any particular deference to your opinion? Are you a parenting expert? Have you done or even read the research on this issue?

I can't teach my daughters the things my wife can and she can't show them things I can. IMO girls need a strong male influence that shows them what love between a husband and wife should be that will shape who they marry. Parents have so much influence with kids and if you don't show regard for God's laws your children have a good chance of disregarding them as well.

You mean, your interpretation of what you think are God's laws, don't you?

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.

Not reckless or immoral because I base EVERYTHING on the Bible not just this subject. Example a friend of mine came to town with his girlfriend to stay with us for the weekend, they have no problem with pre martial sex. I do not say anything to him outside of he knows my views but when they stayed at my house they slept in separate rooms. The only reason I had them do that is to honor God.

I'm not in your house, lastcall, I'm in the world. The real, public, actual world, where all of us live an policy is made. Policy should be made on the basis of facts, not religious prejudice.

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

When I say healthy I mean mental health. They are exposed to a mom and a dad, hopefully loving on each other and that will give them a good view of both men and women.

So, if we administer tests that measure mental health, children of mom/dad households will perform better than children of two mom households, correct?

[lastcallhall]

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

No not at all, it does not say in specific detail about gay parents. I gave the verses to show that if the homosexual lifestyle is sinful that it would not be an acceptable situation with God. The Bible does not have to use a specific word in order for us to understand how God views something

[Autodidact]

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.

Yes

Would you agree that does not match with the general definition of that term?

I know it does not match the worlds view. The world values money, success, and fame. There is nothing wrong with those things but if you loose your soul it was not worth it.

O.K., since it doesn't match the world's view, if you state it as if that's what you meant, it misleads people. It isn't honest. You didn't mean "do better" in the world's sense, but in your private, unusual, idiosyncratic sense that means something completely different from what people will naturally think you mean.

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?

I am sorry if I was not clear and I hope this clears up some of our confusion.

I would appreciate it if you continue to try to be more clear/honest about this in future. next time it comes up, and I'm not here to catch you out, instead of making the false statement you made, say, "In my opinion, children of two-mom familes are less likely to live in accord with what I see as God's rules," since that's what you actually meant, apparently.

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.

What assertion do you want me to backup with stats?

Your assertion. What you actually meant. That children of straight families are more likely to get married, have kids, and follow Jesus than children of gay families. Do you have any research to support this assertion? Or, as is your habit, did you just assume that to be the case based on your own prejudice?

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?

In my sense no, but they are functional happy members of society. I think everyone would function better with a relationship with Jesus.

Good to know. Basically you think Christians make the best parents. By sheer coincidence, you're Christian.

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?

Any man and woman should be able to marry and adopt kids. Gays are two men or two woman and I won't endorse something the Bible calls sin. If the law changes it does but it will not change my view.

Why? You've shown that, by your standards, they're not good parents. Why should Jews be allowed to marry and screw up their kids, but not lesbians? Aren't Jews living in sin? Aren't they failing their children? Aren't they teaching their children wrong? Why don't you discriminate against Jews then? Could it be because even you realize that such discrimination is wrong?

[Autodidact]

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

No not at all, it does not say in specific detail about gay parents. I gave the verses to show that if the homosexual lifestyle is sinful that it would not be an acceptable situation with God. The Bible does not have to use a specific word in order for us to understand how God views something

In fact, it says nothing about the subject at all. It doesn't prohibit lesbianism at all. It says nothing about gay parenting or gay marriage. And it says absolutely nothing about the children of lesbian moms.

All you have is your odd interpretation of a few irrelevant passages that may or may not say something about male homosexuality, probably not.

The rest is not God and not the Bible, it's just your prejudice again, jumping to conclusions, as you tend to do.

[East of Eden]

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.

IMHO, someone openly flaunting the gay lifestyle is not a Christian. Someone with same-sex feelings who lives in accordance with God's will certainly can be. The Bible says they will not inherit the Kingdom, and Jesus said His true followers are not those who say "Lord, lord...." but those who do His will.

Your assertion. What you actually meant. That children of straight families are more likely to get married, have kids, and follow Jesus than children of gay families. Do you have any research to support this assertion? Or, as is your habit, did you just assume that to be the case based on your own prejudice?

According to this, children of gay parents are more likely to identify as gay, and to be in a broken home:

http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstt ... omosexual/

Why? You've shown that, by your standards, they're not good parents. Why should Jews be allowed to marry and screw up their kids, but not lesbians? Aren't Jews living in sin? Aren't they failing their children? Aren't they teaching their children wrong? Why don't you discriminate against Jews then? Could it be because even you realize that such discrimination is wrong?

Jews have a constitutional right to practice whatever religion they choose, and a heterosexual Jewish couple provides a kid with a mother and father, something two gays can never do.

[East of Eden]

In fact, it says nothing about the subject at all. It doesn't prohibit lesbianism at all.

Nonsense.

Romans 1:24-27 ESV
Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

[Meow Mix]

There's a huge correlation between children having two heterosexual Christian parents in the South and 1) self-identifying as Christians and 2) having broken homes.

Now do you understand why correlation doesn't always mean causation?