The "Radical Gay Agendaâ„¢" Explained

[Haven]

Many members of America's Religious Right and religious conservative communities across the world are concerned about the effect the Radical Gay Agendaâ„¢ may have on society. As a gay person, I want to clarify a few things about this Agendaâ„¢ and explain what most TLGBQ people (like with any community, not all queer people want the same things -- this list just explains what most of us want) desire from society. I'll also debunk a few nefarious myths.

The "Radical Gay Agendaâ„¢" -- What We Want:

1. The same civil rights as anyone in society. This includes the right to get married, adopt children, enter any public establishment, visit our loved ones in hospitals, enter spaces appropriate for our gender identities, and not face discrimination in employment. Right now, TLGBQ people can be denied marriage and family rights, fired, or even arrested simply because of our sexual or gender identities.

2. Freedom from violence or verbal assaults based on our sexual orientations or gender identities. TLGBQ people in general--and especially gay men and lesbians of color and all trans women--face a disproportionate number of violent assaults, "corrective" rapes, and even murders compared to the straight, cisgender population.

3. Acceptance and inclusion within society, in the same way as any other minority group. This includes, but is not limited to, the marginalization of anti-gay hate speech and anti-gay "education" in schools, and
visibility within society.

Myths about the "Agendaâ„¢"

1. We're not after your kids. There is no nefarious gay plot to recruit children into the "homosexual" or "transsexual" "lifestyle." We do want kids who are born gay, bi, lesbian, trans*, or asexual to be supported by their families and society, though, and not be driven to suicide by intolerant / hateful parents or peers.

2. We're not after your churches or mosques. Most gay people don't care what religious people believe about homosexuality, as long as those beliefs don't translate into discriminatory public policies or public acts of harassment, violence, or terrorism.

3. We don't want to take over the world. I mean, puh-lease! There is no plan to institute "gay authority" on the rest of the planet. We just want to be treated like everyone else.

Debate question: is this "Agendaâ„¢" reasonable? Is it evil? Why or why not?

[Divine Insight]

Most gay people don't care what religious people believe about homosexuality, as long as those beliefs don't translate into discriminatory public policies or public acts of harassment, violence, or terrorism.

I'm not gay, but just for the record I'd like to address the above statement.

Although I'm not gay, I have conversed with various gay people, and one particular group of them consider themselves to be "Gay Christians", they have even gone to much trouble to start their own church. It is their belief and conviction that the Bible does not describe a loving same-gender relationship as being a sin. And they argue this passionately against Christendom views that demand otherwise.

Now I'm just tossing this out here because in your statement above it almost sounds like all gay people are atheists, or certainly non-Christians and they therefore don't care what religious people think.

That simply isn't the case. There are many gay people who also believe in Jesus and they are strongly offended by Christians who use Jesus as a weapon of bigoted judgement against them because of their same-gender relationships.

So there are gay people who do indeed have an "agenda" to at least care what religious people have to say, and potentially change the way that Christianity is taught and viewed concerning this topic.

There are gay people who want to start Christian Gay Churches.

I personally have no problem with this other than I think that Christianity is a waste of time in any case. But I'm just saying, I think it's incorrect to say that gay people don't care what religious people think. Many gay people are highly offended by Christian's who refuse to acknowledge the gay person's love of Jesus, and instead act like they are the enemy of Jesus. And there are gay communities that do indeed hope to found "Christian Churches" that accept gays as being upstanding and respectable "Christians".

So they do have an 'agenda' to incorporate the gay lifestyle into Christianity as being a sinless and respectable lifestyle.

I personally have no problem with this, but I'm just pointing out that this agenda does indeed exist.

[connermt]

[Replying to post 11 by Divine Insight]

So they do have an 'agenda' to incorporate the gay lifestyle into Christianity as being a sinless and respectable lifestyle.

Everyone has an agenda of some type at one point or another in life so long as they live long enough to be able to have independent thought.
And no one person can speak for an entire group (gay christians are a minority it seems - though growing unfortunately - but hey even gay people can be needy and lost).
However, there being some type of 'Gay Agenda' where there's indoctrination or the like....? paranoid talk that's used as a rallying cry of the anti-gay crowd that serves only to cause laughter in reality.

[Eternity]

[Replying to post 1 by Haven]

Acceptance and inclusion within society, in the same way as any other minority group. This includes, but is not limited to, the marginalization of anti-gay hate speech and anti-gay "education" in schools, and
visibility within society.

Does this mean that the scriptures that clearly define homosexuals and homosexuality in a negative way is "anti-gay" speech and therefor defined by homosexuals and bi-sexuals and transgendered individuals and groups . . . as a "hate crime" and are Christians that believe as Christians should about the sin and sinfulness of homosexuality are to be marginalized?

That term "marginalized" sounds very threatening.

To a conservative, orthodox or fundamental denomination or Catholic church, I suppose that "marginalized" does sound threatening. My point becomes one of many differing views regarding Christianity. There is no passage within the Bible that condemns homosexuality. Leviticus seems to condemn male-male sexual acts but in fact speak about what is not acceptable within the Hebrew culture. Abomination is about what is different then lends to the discussion about idolatry. Romans uses this understanding to pit Jewish and Gentile Christians against what is wrong within both groups. Indeed, there were differences from the beginning. Jude was about sex with angels and so was Sodom. The invention of homosexuality goes way back to the first 500 years of Christianity. I refer to it as the etiology of homosexuality. It is all man's perception.

[bluethread]

The invention of homosexuality goes way back to the first 500 years of Christianity. I refer to it as the etiology of homosexuality.

As I have pointed out on another thread, the invention of homosexuality dates way back to 1869, when Karl-Maria Kertbeny used the term, which he created, in a pamphlet against sodomy laws in Germany. If you are talking about the out right rejection of sexual relationships that are not part of a male/female marital relationship, then yes, this is peculiar to the Apostolic Writings. However, that is not because alternatives were acceptable before that in a Torah observant society. It is because they weren't even on the radar. That was the kind of stuff the Goyim do. It is the application of HaTorah to Greek and Roman societies, resulting from tha acceptance of goyim into the Shul of Yeshua, that required the issue to be addressed directly, and it wasn't addressed as "homosexuality", because Karl-Maria Kertbeny had not invented the term yet.

[Eternity]

[Replying to bluethread]

Interesting. I'll have to add this to my research.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 14 by bluethread]

I would also like to add that within the Theodesian code that was adopted after the roman empire took the official religion of Christianity, they specifically sought to ban male-male marriage but not female-female marriage.

So again to rebuff your point it was not against homosexuality in general but male-male relations specifically(it could be argued only male-male relations that were transgendered in nature).

CTh.9.7.3

paraphrase:

A man married to a man who projects a woman's gender sex has lost its place and a crime has been committed.

It is really kind of tricky to translate it since they did not prior to this adoption of the Theodessian code have a need to use the words in this way. You can see the early blending of two distinctly different cultures in this edict.

[Eternity]

The invention of homosexuality goes way back to the first 500 years of Christianity. I refer to it as the etiology of homosexuality.

As I have pointed out on another thread, the invention of homosexuality dates way back to 1869, when Karl-Maria Kertbeny used the term, which he created, in a pamphlet against sodomy laws in Germany. If you are talking about the out right rejection of sexual relationships that are not part of a male/female marital relationship, then yes, this is peculiar to the Apostolic Writings. However, that is not because alternatives were acceptable before that in a Torah observant society. It is because they weren't even on the radar. That was the kind of stuff the Goyim do. It is the application of HaTorah to Greek and Roman societies, resulting from tha acceptance of goyim into the Shul of Yeshua, that required the issue to be addressed directly, and it wasn't addressed as "homosexuality", because Karl-Maria Kertbeny had not invented the term yet.

"As I have pointed out on another thread, the invention of homosexuality dates way back to 1869, when Karl-Maria Kertbeny used the term, which he created, in a pamphlet against sodomy laws in Germany."

Given that the word, homosexuality was coined in 1969, the Church has condemned what we call homosexuality from as far back as Gregory the Great. Then it was referred to as sodomy. Sodomy was also coined in the first two centuries of the Church. What most don't recognize is that Roman law dictated sexuality and it is there that the Church developed sexual ethics. What is more interesting is how sexual acts overcame sinful acts. See, Moralia in Job for documentation regarding how sexual acts became what defined sin. It becomes quite evident that Gregory the Great added to his theology sexual sins, where they did not exist before except as a Roman law.

In a limited way I've researched this invention for many years and I've come to the conclusion that, Moralia in Job changed greatly the Early Church. It establishes genital sins over and before the meaning of sin itself. The sad part of this event is that the true meaning of sin has been forgotten and this leads many Christians too sin ignorantly. See, The Invention of Sodomy in Christian Theology, Mark D. Jordan.

As a side, it is said that marijuana is a gate way drug. So to is sin linked to the genitals.

Leviticus was no different than Roman law. The laws ordered their societies. Masclinity ordered both laws and justice was the goal of both laws. On one hand historically we speak of the Hebrew people, God's people and on the other hand we relate to Roman history as the birth of Democracy, a Republic. Both had their religion established in these laws or, vice versa. Justice for Hebrews and justice for Romans. Both had a nationality and a religion. Christians were persecuted in Rome because they were atheist. If you did not worship the pagan gods you were against Rome and Rome's religion. Death was often preceded by horrendous torture for crimes agains gods/God.

Hope that this has changed is wishful thinking. It still exists in our world.

There is so much more to this subject that I've only scratched the surface

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 14 by bluethread]

I would also like to add that within the Theodesian code that was adopted after the roman empire took the official religion of Christianity, they specifically sought to ban male-male marriage but not female-female marriage.

So again to rebuff your point it was not against homosexuality in general but male-male relations specifically(it could be argued only male-male relations that were transgendered in nature).

CTh.9.7.3

paraphrase:

A man married to a man who projects a woman's gender sex has lost its place and a crime has been committed.

It is really kind of tricky to translate it since they did not prior to this adoption of the Theodessian code have a need to use the words in this way. You can see the early blending of two distinctly different cultures in this edict.

I am of the opinion that Constantine was arguably one of the worst things that ever happened to the Christian Church. That is one of the reasons I do not accept the designation. So, this does not change my point. It only shows that the RCC, has a problem.

[bluethread]

"As I have pointed out on another thread, the invention of homosexuality dates way back to 1869, when Karl-Maria Kertbeny used the term, which he created, in a pamphlet against sodomy laws in Germany."

Given that the word, homosexuality was coined in 1969, the Church has condemned what we call homosexuality from as far back as Gregory the Great. Then it was referred to as sodomy. Sodomy was also coined in the first two centuries of the Church. What most don't recognize is that Roman law dictated sexuality and it is there that the Church developed sexual ethics. What is more interesting is how sexual acts overcame sinful acts. See, Moralia in Job for documentation regarding how sexual acts became what defined sin. It becomes quite evident that Gregory the Great added to his theology sexual sins, where they did not exist before except as a Roman law.

In a limited way I've researched this invention for many years and I've come to the conclusion that, Moralia in Job changed greatly the Early Church. It establishes genital sins over and before the meaning of sin itself. The sad part of this event is that the true meaning of sin has been forgotten and this leads many Christians too sin ignorantly. See, The Invention of Sodomy in Christian Theology, Mark D. Jordan.

As a side, it is said that marijuana is a gate way drug. So to is sin linked to the genitals.

Leviticus was no different than Roman law. The laws ordered their societies. Masclinity ordered both laws and justice was the goal of both laws. On one hand historically we speak of the Hebrew people, God's people and on the other hand we relate to Roman history as the birth of Democracy, a Republic. Both had their religion established in these laws or, vice versa. Justice for Hebrews and justice for Romans. Both had a nationality and a religion. Christians were persecuted in Rome because they were atheist. If you did not worship the pagan gods you were against Rome and Rome's religion. Death was often preceded by horrendous torture for crimes agains gods/God.

Hope that this has changed is wishful thinking. It still exists in our world.

There is so much more to this subject that I've only scratched the surface

If by coined you mean became more widely used do to the Stonewall activism, that is fine, but it was not invented or adopted by modern bible translators, as part of an agenda. That was the point I was addressing.

Regarding Christianity, I have no doubt that, in their attempt hold a crumbling empire together, the Holy Roman Empire adopted many practices of many nations. It is also not surprising to me that many nations accepted sexual relationships that were not male/female matrimonial relationships. However, every attempt to justify those other sexual relationships so far have been tortured arguments from silence or appeals to the practices of the nations.

If such relationships are acceptable in a Torah submissive society, why do we not see the commandments associated with male/female matrimonial relationships applied to them? For example, there is no instructions regarding what is to be done when one get's into a fight and one's male lover grabs the assailant genitals. However, the penalty is quite severe if it is one's wife. Leviticus 20 speaks of all kinds of forbidden male/female relationships, but only has one verse related to male/male sexual relationships and none regarding female/female relationships. So, are you actually arguing that it is acceptable for two sisters to have a sexual relationship, or a daughter and mother, or niece and aunt, and the same is possibly true for two men, but clearly not for a man and a woman?

[Eternity]

"As I have pointed out on another thread, the invention of homosexuality dates way back to 1869, when Karl-Maria Kertbeny used the term, which he created, in a pamphlet against sodomy laws in Germany."

Given that the word, homosexuality was coined in 1969, the Church has condemned what we call homosexuality from as far back as Gregory the Great. Then it was referred to as sodomy. Sodomy was also coined in the first two centuries of the Church. What most don't recognize is that Roman law dictated sexuality and it is there that the Church developed sexual ethics. What is more interesting is how sexual acts overcame sinful acts. See, Moralia in Job for documentation regarding how sexual acts became what defined sin. It becomes quite evident that Gregory the Great added to his theology sexual sins, where they did not exist before except as a Roman law.

In a limited way I've researched this invention for many years and I've come to the conclusion that, Moralia in Job changed greatly the Early Church. It establishes genital sins over and before the meaning of sin itself. The sad part of this event is that the true meaning of sin has been forgotten and this leads many Christians too sin ignorantly. See, The Invention of Sodomy in Christian Theology, Mark D. Jordan.

As a side, it is said that marijuana is a gate way drug. So to is sin linked to the genitals.

Leviticus was no different than Roman law. The laws ordered their societies. Masclinity ordered both laws and justice was the goal of both laws. On one hand historically we speak of the Hebrew people, God's people and on the other hand we relate to Roman history as the birth of Democracy, a Republic. Both had their religion established in these laws or, vice versa. Justice for Hebrews and justice for Romans. Both had a nationality and a religion. Christians were persecuted in Rome because they were atheist. If you did not worship the pagan gods you were against Rome and Rome's religion. Death was often preceded by horrendous torture for crimes agains gods/God.
. . .
There is so much more to this subject that I've only scratched the surface

. . .
So, are you actually arguing that it is acceptable for two sisters to have a sexual relationship, or a daughter and mother, or niece and aunt, and the same is possibly true for two men, but clearly not for a man and a woman?

Arguably, there is no law regarding human sexuality, only Law governing relationships and righteousness. Any Early Church canon regarding sex came from the Roman government, culture. The Early Church simply did not have reason to address human sexuality. The Synod of Elvira, if I am not mistaken, is the first establishment of Canons within the Church, approximately 305. Gregory the Great was pope from c. 540 - 12 and with his Moralia of Job the Church began recognizing sex as the gateway to sin. Anything about sex before Gregory the Great was Roman (Not Catholic). Roman law had great regards for what the definition of a man was. What changed Roman law was the issue of the rights of Eunuchs as, they were consistently apart of the Roman Courts and aristocracy.

Christians today want their perceptions and doctrine to be God's doing but historically such pretended precepts do not, never existed.

Leviticus was about Israel's constitution. The sin regarding, what today's Christians want to believe, was not about homosexuality (as is evidenced by the modern definition of homosexuality) because, as with your question regarding male-male sex and, female-female sex, was never the concern within Leviticus. Idolatry was the concern. What was mixed was the concern. I don't lightly tread on Christianity when I make this sort of a statement. I look deep into the true meaning of each Hebrew, Greek and English word that represents for Christianity what Christianity is all about. The truth is startling.

Without an exhausting reply riddled with biblical quotes and exegesis relating to the truth, I am prepared to do so, with historical facts as well as biblical references.

It is said that no one person can possibly absorb all that has been revealed in the past century regarding the OT and the NT. The deeper I get in my research the more in depth the corroboration becomes, the more fluent is the message of the Bible. Like my statement regarding St. Augustine above or in previous reply, from St. Aujustine to Gregory the Great's Moralia of Job, it is very clear that St. Augustine's disordered love predominates. More to the point, the OT spoke of what was in the heart as well as Jesus in the NT. These are the same points as St. Augustine and Gregory the Great but, modern Christianity forces the condemnation of homosexuality instead of the true message of the heart.

One must ask, "Why does Christianity hide the true meaning of the Gospel?"