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?

[Deadclown]

It's a statistical study with a relatively low sample size (73) and it isn't exactly blowing my skirt up. So if we break down the numbers, 27 couples per national average would have divorced, and they had 43 couples separate, with 31 of them sharing custody amicably afterwords.

These findings suggest that adolescents reared in lesbian families are less likely than their peers to be victimized by a parent or other caregiver, and that daughters of lesbian mothers are more likely to engage in same-sex behavior and to identify as bisexual.
...
A key finding in the current study was that none of the NLLFS adolescents reported physical or sexual abuse by a parent or other caregiver. This finding contradicts the notion, offered in opposition to parenting by gay and lesbian people, that same-sex parents are likely to abuse their offspring sexually
...
There was a noteworthy absence of parental/caregiver physical and sexual abuse in the self-reports of adolescents with lesbian mothers

So... they are better off having a higher risk of getting abused, as long as the abuser has a penis and the girls don't make out with other girls?

In addition, on the standardized Child Behavior Checklist, the daughters and sons of lesbian mothers were rated significantly higher in social, school/academic, and total competence, and significantly lower in social problems, rule-breaking, aggressive, and externalizing problem behavior than their peers in the normative sample of American youth (Gartrell & Bos, 2010).

Seems to me that your evidence indicates that lesbians make BETTER parents than heterosexuals. And that the potential 'downside' is... more bisexual women.

[Autodidact]

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

. I see. That's interesting. That raises a lot of questions for me:
-So some people who say they're Christian actually are not?
-What percentage, would you say?
-Who gets to decide?
-All those people who say they're Christian but are not, why do they do that? Are they liars? Self-deluded, What?
-What is the criteria for who is and is not a Christian?
-What about remarried, divorced people? Are they true Christians?

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/

First, there's nothing wrong with identifying as gay. Second, nevertheless, children of gay and lesbian parents are not more likely to be gay than children of straight parents.

Taken together, the data do not suggest elevated rates of homosexuality among the offspring of lesbian or gay parents.

Of course, if they were, it would be necessary to separate genetic from environmental factors. Third, did you notice that you cite a skewed summary of the research, rather than the research itself, which comes to very different conclusions?

The results of some studies suggest that lesbian mothers' and gay fathers' parenting skills may be superior to those of matched heterosexual couples. For instance, Flaks, Fischer, Masterpasqua, and Joseph (1995) reported that lesbian couples' parenting awareness skills were stronger than those of heterosexual couples. This was attributed to greater parenting awareness among lesbian nonbiological mothers than among heterosexual fathers. In one study, Brewaeys and her colleagues (1997) likewise reported more favorable patterns of parent-child interaction among lesbian as compared to heterosexual parents, but in another, they found greater similarities (Vanfraussen, Ponjaert-Kristoffersen, & Brewaeys, 2003). A recent study of 256 lesbian and gay parent families found that, in contrast to patterns characterizing the majority of American parents, very few lesbian and gay parents reported any use of physical punishment (such as spanking) as a disciplinary technique; instead, they were likely to report use of positive techniques such as reasoning (Johnson & O'Connor, 2002).

Results of research to date suggest that children of lesbian and gay parents have positive relationships with peers and that their relationships with adults of both sexes are also satisfactory. The picture of lesbian mothers' children that emerges is one of general engagement in social life with peers, with fathers, with grandparents, and with mothers' adult friends-both male and female, both heterosexual and homosexual. Fears about children of lesbians and gay men being sexually abused by adults, ostracized by peers, or isolated in single-sex lesbian or gay communities have received no support from the results of existing research.

All quotes from the APA: http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/parenting.aspx

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.

But not Christian parents, which lastcall thinks would be superior. Do you agree with him? So, the only thing that prevents you from discriminating against Jewish families is the Constitution? btw, what if the Supreme Court finds that gay families are also entitled to Constitutional protection; will you change your position?

[Autodidact]

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.

No prohibition there; it's a narrative, not a prohibition. It's not like God doesn't know how to prohibit things. Divorce and remarriage, for example, that's strictly prohibited. Yet you never see Evangelical Christians campaigning against step-parents. Could it be because so many of them are divorced?

So, East, can you help lastcall out? Got any studies that show that children of two moms do worse on any objective measure than children of moms and dads?

[Autodidact]

In reality, the existing research is hugely skewed in favor of heterosexuals, and they still fare poorly. Why do I say that? The research compares intact, two-parent families. But as we all know, many, many heterosexuals have children outside of intact, two-parent families. If you include the full range of children of heterosexuals, you would need to include the children born to unmarried teenage parents--heterosexual. The children of prostitutes--heterosexual. The children of illiterate child brides--heterosexual. The 6th, 7th and 8th children of heterosexual women in third world countries. The 8 or 10 children born to the plural wives of Fundamentalist Mormons. The children born out of incest and rape. The children born to battered women. All of these children are born to heterosexuals. None of them are born to exclusive lesbians because, for biological reasons, lesbianism does not result in unplanned pregnancy. If you included the full range of children born to heterosexuals, it would be clear how much better the children who grow up in lesbian families have it. Because lesbians have planned for, wanted and cared for children. Some heterosexuals do--but many do not.

[lastcallhall]

It's a statistical study with a relatively low sample size (73) and it isn't exactly blowing my skirt up. So if we break down the numbers, 27 couples per national average would have divorced, and they had 43 couples separate, with 31 of them sharing custody amicably afterwords.

These findings suggest that adolescents reared in lesbian families are less likely than their peers to be victimized by a parent or other caregiver, and that daughters of lesbian mothers are more likely to engage in same-sex behavior and to identify as bisexual.
...
A key finding in the current study was that none of the NLLFS adolescents reported physical or sexual abuse by a parent or other caregiver. This finding contradicts the notion, offered in opposition to parenting by gay and lesbian people, that same-sex parents are likely to abuse their offspring sexually
...
There was a noteworthy absence of parental/caregiver physical and sexual abuse in the self-reports of adolescents with lesbian mothers

So... they are better off having a higher risk of getting abused, as long as the abuser has a penis and the girls don't make out with other girls?

In addition, on the standardized Child Behavior Checklist, the daughters and sons of lesbian mothers were rated significantly higher in social, school/academic, and total competence, and significantly lower in social problems, rule-breaking, aggressive, and externalizing problem behavior than their peers in the normative sample of American youth (Gartrell & Bos, 2010).

Seems to me that your evidence indicates that lesbians make BETTER parents than heterosexuals. And that the potential 'downside' is... more bisexual women.

Ok I get it now a non biased source like this study, unlike the articles I have listed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanette_Gartrell

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dee_Mosbacher

one of the authors is married to another lesbian activist.

http://home.medewerker.uva.nl/h.m.w.bos/

http://www.nllfs.org/about/henny-bos/

The studies, IMO, have an obvious axe to grind. They are lesbians pushing an agenda.

[Autodidact]

It's a statistical study with a relatively low sample size (73) and it isn't exactly blowing my skirt up. So if we break down the numbers, 27 couples per national average would have divorced, and they had 43 couples separate, with 31 of them sharing custody amicably afterwords.

These findings suggest that adolescents reared in lesbian families are less likely than their peers to be victimized by a parent or other caregiver, and that daughters of lesbian mothers are more likely to engage in same-sex behavior and to identify as bisexual.
...
A key finding in the current study was that none of the NLLFS adolescents reported physical or sexual abuse by a parent or other caregiver. This finding contradicts the notion, offered in opposition to parenting by gay and lesbian people, that same-sex parents are likely to abuse their offspring sexually
...
There was a noteworthy absence of parental/caregiver physical and sexual abuse in the self-reports of adolescents with lesbian mothers

So... they are better off having a higher risk of getting abused, as long as the abuser has a penis and the girls don't make out with other girls?

In addition, on the standardized Child Behavior Checklist, the daughters and sons of lesbian mothers were rated significantly higher in social, school/academic, and total competence, and significantly lower in social problems, rule-breaking, aggressive, and externalizing problem behavior than their peers in the normative sample of American youth (Gartrell & Bos, 2010).

Seems to me that your evidence indicates that lesbians make BETTER parents than heterosexuals. And that the potential 'downside' is... more bisexual women.

Ok I get it now a non biased source like this study, unlike the articles I have listed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanette_Gartrell

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dee_Mosbacher

one of the authors is married to another lesbian activist.

http://home.medewerker.uva.nl/h.m.w.bos/

http://www.nllfs.org/about/henny-bos/

The studies, IMO, have an obvious axe to grind. They are lesbians pushing an agenda.

So you can't find any problem with the methodology? Nothing but an ad hominem attack? Would it help if I gave you a lesson on the major common logical fallacies?

So lesbians cannot study lesbians without bias? What about heterosexuals, would they be inherently biased?

[lastcallhall]

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 looked at your articles and I think your people are biased. If this is an official "peer reviewed study" then I will take my chances with my sources. I did honestly look and research the people that wrote them. I provided links on a previous post. Lesbian activists.

[Meow Mix]

So lesbians cannot study lesbians without bias? What about heterosexuals, would they be inherently biased?

While I agree that lesbians can study lesbians without bias, I think it comes with a nudge and a wink in the eyes of someone against homosexuality. I'm not saying I agree with their hesitance but I at least understand where it's coming from. For instance, if there were a study that finds something like Christians are more prone to have fantastic children and those who conducted the study were themselves activist Christians, I'd probably take it with a grain of salt myself.

There are agendas on both sides of this issue, and I'm not saying whether or not the studies you posted are among them (I haven't read them, nor am I frankly interested in these statistics since I think they're irrelevant to the point of civic equality); just expressing my general sentiment that I wish all of these issues wouldn't get so clouded by them.

[lastcallhall]

So you can't find any problem with the methodology? Nothing but an ad hominem attack? Would it help if I gave you a lesson on the major common logical fallacies?


So lesbians cannot study lesbians without bias? What about heterosexuals, would they be inherently biased?

There you have it, no attack just did some research on the authors and found they are lesbian activists. Of course they will get the results they are looking for, do you think they would try to harm the cause of gay adoption? On this one you have to do better than say I am using fallacies.

[Autodidact]

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 looked at your articles and I think your people are biased. If this is an official "peer reviewed study" then I will take my chances with my sources. I did honestly look and research the people that wrote them. I provided links on a previous post. Lesbian activists.

I see. So in your prejudiced view all lesbians are liars; only Christians with your particular views are to be believed? Do you find it challenging to walk around with so much prejudice all the time?

METHODOLOGY. You have two jobs:
1. Find a study that supports your position.
2. Find problems with the METHODOLOGY of the studies that refute your position.

How about if you start with #1? Find a study that supports your position. Because, as I have said around 7 times now, you're the one who made a positive assertion. Which was false.