Is there a "gay agenda" or "gay culture?"

[Haven]

In another thread, 99% posted this:

Why don't you or Haven (the author of the OP) show us the compatibility between the gay agenda, gay culture and Christian life? I've never seen anyone be able to connect the two in all reality.

I asked him to provide evidence for this "gay agenda" and "gay culture," and I made it clear that there were no such things. Yet he continues to use the terms, and many anti-gay Christians continue to believe in the "gay agenda" or "gay culture."

Debate question: Is there a "gay agenda" or "gay culture?" What evidence do you have to support your position?

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 3 by DanieltheDragon]

To me this rings of a conspiracy theory. That there is a secretive gay agenda!!!

I'm sorry you listen to me that way.

As far as gay culture go I suppose that would be a culture that is associated with individuals whom identify as homosexual and not bisexual or transgendered.

It is the same as me saying the straight culture or black culture or white culture or american culture. It is the culture of the group you are talking about. Cultures inherently don't have agendas it is a set of customs that describe a particular group.

There is no gay agenda because gay people are not hive minded. That is like saying the atheist agenda or the christian agenda. People don't go around and saying Apple fan agenda do they?

So imagine that was what I was saying. Which it was.

How else are we to treat people who are attracted to each other in horror disdain shame? please I am confused by this statement can you clarify how I should greet people who are LGBT?

Treat them normally. Do you run around in horror at blind people or deaf people or old people? I don't. But I do wish they were not blind or deaf or old. If evolution is true then it is a disadvantage/disability to not desire the opposite sex.

This I have no idea what you are talking about. How is someone who wants to be treated as an equal gouging society for favors Think .

I'm basically hinting at what is really going on. People are using equality as an excuse to get more tax payer dollars for themselves. That is the real agenda of most agendas.

Lets take marriage for instance.

There are laws for driving a car and some people disqualify. There are all sorts of laws that we are disqualified from for all sorts of reasons. Marriage is law for men and women. Create something else for women and women. Ultimately these laws that disqualify us are wisdom issues.

Should a blind person drive a car, no. We take away their right to do so because we think it is wise to not let them to do so.

I think it is unwise to break down the marriage contract to satisfy a tiny minority within a tiny minority.

It seems to me that the only gouging of rights is from the straight culture or straight agenda....

To be clear. There are no rights, that is all illusion. Since if we face that fact straight then we can understand why people are so keen on rights at all. It is a metaphysical concept used to self justify. What might the benefit be of pretending rights exist? The only benefit I can see in our current age is that people can use the imaginary concept of rights to gouge the state for cash.

[Wordleymaster1]

[Replying to Wootah]

If evolution is true then it is a disadvantage/disability to not desire the opposite sex.

There is a connection between homosexuality and evolution, but it's not likely as you seem to say here if I understand correctly.
Evolution is not here to promote any one species over another - it simply "IS".
Attributing a reason to something like evolution is the begining of a poor understanding of the thing discussed.
If what you say is true, then there is a disadvantage to anything that seems 'negative': disease, mosquitoes, pain, etc. That is not the case. Things exist in evolution because they fit the model evolution itself is molding. Once something stops benefitting the model, it dies out or disappears.
Evolution is not a 'thing' with a though process as your statement seems to indicate.

Marriage is law for men and women. Create something else for women and women. Ultimately these laws that disqualify us are wisdom issues.

Laws can be, and are, changed as society changes. Why create something else for another group that one group may not like? Why didn't we create a different law for people who marry outside their race? Why not create a different law for someone that marries someone else 20 years their senior? Why not create a different law for a Christian marriage vs. a Mormon marriage vs. a atheist marriage?
Besides that silliness, there are those who oppose ANY rights to certain sets of people no matter what you 'call' the law. Maybe this is one reason why we SHOULDN'T create specific laws for different groups that want the same thing IE marriage?
What does 2 women getting married do to the marriage of a man & a woman? Does it harm a straight marriage? If so, how? If not, then what's the problem? Personal taste?

There are no rights, that is all illusion.

Show this claim to be true and factual

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 12 by Wordleymaster1]

There is a connection between homosexuality and evolution, but it's not likely as you seem to say here if I understand correctly.
Evolution is not here to promote any one species over another - it simply "IS".
Attributing a reason to something like evolution is the begining of a poor understanding of the thing discussed.
If what you say is true, then there is a disadvantage to anything that seems 'negative': disease, mosquitoes, pain, etc. That is not the case. Things exist in evolution because they fit the model evolution itself is molding. Once something stops benefitting the model, it dies out or disappears.
Evolution is not a 'thing' with a though process as your statement seems to indicate.

We try to believe evolution 'simply is' and yet I note you also say 'fit the model evolution itself is molding'. So evolution isn't 'simply is' but it is 'moulding'. And apparently there is a model that once we stop benefitting we die out or disappear.

What does 2 women getting married do to the marriage of a man & a woman? Does it harm a straight marriage? If so, how? If not, then what's the problem? Personal taste?

Distorting marriage will allow other distortions such as polygamy to be validated within society. It also validates absurdity.

[99percentatheism]

Haven

The very term "anti-gay Christians" affirms that. Jesus, RE-defining marriage as immutably man and woman, is then to be considered an anti-gay?"

The term is accurate when applied to that subset of Christians who oppose equality for LGBT people. Not all Christians are heterosexists, you know.

It's a hate-filled, anti-Christian bashing and nothing less. (As Jesus predicted it would be. )

As for Jesus: by today's standards, would be considered a bigot on multiple levels.

Only by Hos enemies. Of course.

From what little we know about his upbringing in 1st-century Jewish culture and what fragments of his teachings survive in Christian writings (although these have probably have been distorted), he was likely sexist and racist.

How political correctness dribble is that. The conditioned response of the modern ideologue.

He was probably homophobic too, although there is no record of him mentioning gay people directly. He was, like all people, a product of his time and social environment.

According to those that do not believe in Him. You left that part out. And the word "homophobic?" Human anatomy is homophobic. Otherwise pregnancy could be obtained through palates and rectums.

If I'm allowed to speculate,

Of course. This is where I draw the most information from people like you about your actual nature. So let's see shall we?

. . . I believe that if Jesus were alive today (and really was a person who preached love), he'd support LGBTQIA rights.

Really? Fisting and a rubber phallus? Gender confusion and cross dressing?

Hmmm.

There was also no record of him being married (which was highly unusual at the time),

Elijah and Elisha were not married either. Prophets each. Obviously not highly unusual in Hebrew history.

. . . and so Jesus may well have been gay himself. Maybe if he were born in the modern world instead of ignorant ancient Israel, he'd be leading Pride parades with his loving, hunky husband.

A Bear instead of a Twink? Something of your tastes showing through?

How about the fact that gay life doesn't exist in a Godly life like that of Jesus and the Prophets?

99%This is part of gay culture and the gay agenda. As is the celebration of homosexual behavior and the redefining of marriage. To say that consistent Christian morality is "anti-gay" is obviously part of a gay agenda and gay culture. That anti-Christians use similar language does not change the reality of the gay agenda and gay culture.

No one would say that the "celebration" of heterosexual behavior and the exclusionary definition of marriage is part of a straight agenda, so why is the push for equality for homosexual behavior, marriage, and, most importantly, gay people as a whole, a "gay agenda?" It makes no sense.

It makes perfect sense. One does not need to claim they are an air breather because they breath in a normal way. Normality does not need to be a definer of ones lifestyle choices and sexual proclivities.

Conservapedia, a right-wing hate siteThe Homosexual Agenda

Conservapedia -- talk about propaganda!

So you cannot refute their facts?

Conservapedia. . . is a self-centered set of beliefs and objectives designed to promote and even mandate approval of homosexuality and homosexual ideology, along with the strategies used to implement such. The goals and means of this movement include indoctrinating students in public school, restricting the free speech of opposition, obtaining special treatment for homosexuals, distorting Biblical teaching and science, and interfering with freedom of association. Advocates of the homosexual agenda seek special rights for homosexuals that other people don't have, such as immunity from criticism (see hate speech, hate crimes). Such special rights will necessarily come at the expense of the rights of broader society. The homosexual agenda is the biggest threat to the right of free speech today.
In 2014, one of the top priorities of the Homosexual Agenda is to prohibit and outlaw conversion therapy, particularly for teenagers. California and New Jersey are the only states to have enacted such laws (Governor Chris Christie signed it into law as he was preparing his reelection campaign), and leftists are pushing similar bans in many other states now.
In a speech on December 10, 2013, to a pro-family rally in Jamaica, Brian Camenker of MassResistance outlined the step-by-step approach of the homosexual agenda:[1]
legalize homosexuality
promote gay pride parades
demand non-discrimination laws
insist on homosexuals' adoption of children
push the homosexual agenda in schools
force "gay marriage" on society
demand public funding to deal with increased homosexual-related social problems
promote the transgender agenda
impose a large-scale loss of free speech
ban counseling for kids confused by homosexual issues
attack churches

- http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexual_Agenda

OK, that's as twisted and biased as anything I've ever read, on par with the KKK's hate-filled literature talking about how blacks (I won't use the actual term they did) will take over the world!

When all else fails, employ a tired old but oft used Alinsky tactic. The KK violate the Gospel of Christ Jesus in the same way it can be proven the gay agenda of attacking marriage does.

I'm heavily involved in the LGBT community and the fight for equal rights. I can emphatically say that we, as LGBT activist, DON'T WANT TO:

Attack churches

That has been proven false.

Ban free speech

That has been proven false by your very characterization of Christian reality as homophobic and the weird neologism of "heterosexist."

Ban counseling for kids "confused" by "homosexual" issues (we do want those kids to get counseling if they need it, just by a professional, pro-gay counselor,

You mean indoctrinated into the gay agenda . . . and gay culture. You simply affirmed that.

. . . not some hate-filled pseudoscientific raving religious lunatic who will pump them full of guilt and shame about their sexual orientation which will encourage them to commit suicide).

How many LGBT a through z et al commit suicide once they are entirely immersed IN the gay community, the gay agenda and gay culture? Looks to be a large number of them?

Promote the "homosexual agenda" in schools (love and acceptance are not an agenda).

Love of engaging in homosexual sex acts and acceptance of same are part of an agenda and a culture. A gay one. As you prove.

We do want to:

Legalize homosexuality (why, other than pure bigotry, should it be illegal? Do you want a society like ISIS Iraq or Uganda?)

Why has it been outlawed from the past until now? There has been homosexuals and homosexuality throughout the ages. Why has it been so disapproved of for so long and by so many? AND still is! And, why does the LGBT a through z et al, demand to implement nation building to make other nations submit to the gay agenda?

promote gay pride parades (the fabulous horror!)

Why would one want to promote debauchery and depravity? Little bitty children should not have to endure condoms, lube and dildo''s thrown at them from parade floats. I have witnessed that in real life at the two gay pride parades I observed. The last one being the last homosexuality celebration I will ever be near.

demand non-discrimination laws (again, should we be ISIS Iraq?)

Not wanting other people to indoctrinate OUR children into gay culture is far more like ISIS and what they demand to indoctrinate OTHER people's children into.

insist on homosexuals' adoption of children (why should only heterosexual couples get to adopt kids? Kids need good parents, and many of those good parents happen to be gay -- get over it!)

No. Adults with good jobs and clean homes should be allowed to foster and adopt children. It should be alarming that these people want to declare what sexual acts they engage in behind their (hopefully) closed BEDROOM doors.

Conservapedia propaganda The Homosexual Agenda

Joseph P. Gudel, in That Which is Unnatural[3] contended that the homosexual movement,

Unnatural? Homosexuality exists in hundreds of species, homophobia exists in only one.

Let's see the Lima male try to mount the Alpha male in a wolf pack and see how many offspring are delivered a few months later. The UNNATURAL act of homosexual coupling, which is only pseudo sexual coupling in reality, and aberrant behavior in actuality and the behavior finds no celebration or support IN nature. There is no offspring from a homosexual encounter. End of the natural designation right there. And if we are to compare human beings to beasts, well then that speaks volumes doesn't it?

[Danmark]

It's a hate-filled, anti-Christian bashing and nothing less. (As Jesus predicted it would be. )
....
How political correctness dribble is that. The conditioned response of the modern ideologue.
Human anatomy is homophobic. Otherwise pregnancy could be obtained through palates and rectums.
....
Really? Fisting and a rubber phallus? Gender confusion and cross dressing?
....
A Bear instead of a Twink? Something of your tastes showing through?
....
Why would one want to promote debauchery and depravity?

Moderator Final Warning
This post is littered with personal attacks, blanket derogatory statements, and inappropriate imagery.
You have previously been suspended and are currently on probation. You have every right under the rules here to explain why you believe the Bible condemns same sex relations, but you are not permitted to make personal attacks which include accusing others of 'promoting depravity.'
Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator final warnings serve as the last strike towards users. Additional violations will result in a probation vote. Further infractions will lead to banishment. Any challenges or replies to moderator warnings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[99percentatheism]

Wordleymaster1
[Replying to Wootah]

If evolution is true then it is a disadvantage/disability to not desire the opposite sex.

There is a connection between homosexuality and evolution, but it's not likely as you seem to say here if I understand correctly.

Evolution is not here to promote any one species over another - it simply "IS".
Attributing a reason to something like evolution is the begining of a poor understanding of the thing discussed.

Evolution, as a process, certainly discounts homosexual behavior as parting of the moving on to improvement of a species doesn't it? There is no species that "evolves" into another one through homosexuality. Homosexuality is aberrant behavior in evolutionary process. Evolution does not see human rights campaigns, it simply is.

If what you say is true, then there is a disadvantage to anything that seems 'negative': disease, mosquitoes, pain, etc.

Mosquitoes do not get to evolve through homosexual couplings. Disease and pain strengthens a species. Homosexuality does not. The behavior exists outside of "natural" selection to a species evolving to becoming another one.

That is not the case. Things exist in evolution because they fit the model evolution itself is molding. Once something stops benefitting the model, it dies out or disappears.

Homosexuals disappear naturally. And always as an individual since by the very act of homosexuality, they do not breed.

Evolution is not a 'thing' with a though process as your statement seems to indicate.

Evolution does not think. It simply is a process by which a species improves through natural selection. Natural selection discounts homosexual behavior as something outside of it.

Marriage is law for men and women. Create something else for women and women. Ultimately these laws that disqualify us are wisdom issues.

Laws can be, and are, changed as society changes. Why create something else for another group that one group may not like? Why didn't we create a different law for people who marry outside their race?

The "races" exist within the same species. Female and male human beings.

Why not create a different law for someone that marries someone else 20 years their senior? Why not create a different law for a Christian marriage vs. a Mormon marriage vs. a atheist marriage?

Why not just recognize natural law? There is no "mate" of the same gender.

Besides that silliness, there are those who oppose ANY rights to certain sets of people no matter what you 'call' the law.

Like the rights of others to oppose the redefinition of human marriage as haters, homophobes, bigots and committing a hate crime?

Maybe this is one reason why we SHOULDN'T create specific laws for different groups that want the same thing IE marriage?

A man being the "husband" of another man is NOT equal to a man being the husband of his wife. Um, er, his female wife.

What does 2 women getting married do to the marriage of a man & a woman?

Why the need to demand that marriage be redefined? A woman is not a husband of another woman and a wife is the spouse a husband. Um er, a man/husband. Why such intolerance towards marriage?

Does it harm a straight marriage? If so, how? If not, then what's the problem? Personal taste?

It redefines marriage. That is an insult and an affront to many, many, many, many, many, many people, peoples and cultures. Why can't homosexuals just invent another classification or definition? That is the reality of their pairings. Unless, of course, this is about promoting homosexuality and not just marriage.

There are no rights, that is all illusion.

Show this claim to be true and factual

The fact of evolution.

[Deidre32]

No such thing as a 'gay agenda.' It is a politically motivated phrase used by the religious right. For their own agenda. lol

Unless we consider striving for equal rights for both homosexuals and heterosexuals to be some sort of....''agenda?''