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?

[lastcallhall]

There is no such thing as a protected group in America. Watch Southpark sometime if you think otherwise (I hate that show btw). If, with the dawn of a federal recognition of gay marriage, you are worried about decreasing numbers of congregates to fundamentalist churches, or an increase in membership in more liberal churches... well, that just comes with the cost of standing upon such a value system.

I am not worried about people going less to church I am worried about labeling the Bible as hate speech to protect a federally protected group. It is not far off from reality. (Even tho many on this site think I am paranoid, maybe a little)

But the idea that preachers will be arrested for teaching against homosexuality and gay marriage, an idea which is repeated by many preachers who just want to be persecuted; it's silly.

Laws prohibiting hate speech are unconstitutional in the United States, outside of obscenity, defamation, incitement to riot, and fighting words.[36][37][38] The United States federal government and state governments are broadly forbidden by the First Amendment of the Constitution from restricting speech.
_____
SOURCE

Even if anti-gay sermons are ever deemed hate speech in a legal sense, such speech is still protected.

I don't think you have any evidence church will be forced to do anything by the government; any such action would be unconstitutional. I think you're just arguing in terrorem

I see your point and agree with you right now. What I have heard is the hate crimes bill is still in congress ready to get voted on again, if that passed along with gay marriage you could fine or get potential jail time for pastors who speak against gay marriage and the homosexual lifestyle.

I'm not familiar with the "Thou shalt vote" commandment.

That's funny

In all seriousness, I'd really like to understand how you equate denying Christ with allowing or supporting gay rights. Having to choose between these two extremes would be unthinkable for the countless gay Christians across America. For me, it's like saying "choose between your eternal salvation, and accepting scientific facts about the world." There's no choice there at all.

If I am not for Jesus I am against him and if I support people who will not uphold biblical principles I am helping support something that is against God's word. Jesus said the world hated him and the world will hate us because of him. I have a lot of people get very angry with me because I will not support something that I feel would be offensive to Jesus.

Besides, Jesus was celibate. He never talked about sex, that I recall. But if you think Jesus wrote Exodus, then I guess we are getting no where with that debate.

I just am not familiar with the "can't be gay/can't be gay-married" clause in Romans 10:9 -- but I guess people see what they want to see when they read the Bible.

The law came from God and being that Jesus is God he gave Moses the law. Jesus also spoke about even lusting after a person is sin. I have posted several passages in Romans that back up my position.

Try, for a moment, putting yourself in their shoes and see if that gives you a different perspective to dwell on.

I understand that this is not an easy subject to talk about but the difficult things in life are not easy. What would you do then if you were me and with every ounce of your being you believe the Bible to be God's word, Jesus is Lord, and that I need to follow what the Bible says. If you also believe that the Bible is solidly against gay marriage, what would you do? Would you abandon your faith or would you please man and just let it go?

[EconAtheism101]

I understand that this is not an easy subject to talk about but the difficult things in life are not easy. What would you do then if you were me and with every ounce of your being you believe the Bible to be God's word, Jesus is Lord, and that I need to follow what the Bible says. If you also believe that the Bible is solidly against gay marriage, what would you do? Would you abandon your faith or would you please man and just let it go?

I like to think that if I believed those things I'd have the integrity and respect for basic human values to recognise the need for equality under law in a secular republic, and that religious values cannot be used as the basis for discriminating against any group. The denial of rights that are given to other groups is discrimination, and I hope that whatever I believed about the supernatural, I'd still be against that.

However I know me! I'm a sucker for ideology, and a moral absolutist, I have difficulty not turning my moral beliefs into prescriptions for others. In reality I think if i held your beliefs I'd probably be on your side on gay marriage, but I hope that's because I'm a weaker man than I ought to be. Here's hoping you have more integrity than I would!

[lastcallhall]

How not? How are same sex marriage laws any different than miscegenation laws?

You said it isn't discrimination because nobody is allowed to marry same sex. By that reasoning miscegenation laws aren't discrimanatory because nobody is allowed to marry a different race under them. The courts struck that down as unconstitutional because they do not accept your line of reasoning.

It is a good point and the difference with not allowing a white person to marry a black person was do to purely personal hatreds and biases. I know that you feel this is the exact same thing but it is not and here is why. We are all God's children and we are all equal. There is no reason to not let someone ride a bus or eat at a cafe because of something they can't help. Homosexuality is called a sin in the Bible and is a lifestyle that you choose to live. I think the harm is not me saying that the harm comes by society accepting sin and calling it something other than sin. Being black is not a sin, practicing the homosexual lifestyle is and I have to take a stand even on tough issues.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 42:

I am not worried about people going less to church I am worried about labeling the Bible as hate speech to protect a federally protected group.
...

How does this jibe with, "If I ain't with Jesus, then I'm against Him"?

If we're not legislating against hate speech, are we not then legislating for hate speech?

That said, this has the appearance of a go/nogo situation - either we allow homosexuals the very freedoms we reserve for ourselves, or we don't. I, for one, will stand with my fellow human beings who seek equality and justice for all. Homosexual marriage does nothing to prevent folks from continuing in their hatred. That's their choice. And I hate 'em for it!

[lastcallhall]

I'm prepared to defend the position that churches SHOULD be forced to accept gay appointments and gay couples against their beliefs, although I do so in the knowledge that this will not happen and that on balance it probably shouldn't. However, by defending the position we can touch on the core argument a little more robustly.

Ok, and I have got this from a few people.

And it's this:

The actions of a private organisation have unsolicited costs to third parties, and legislation must take this into account.

In a secular framework, which is what any sane government operates under no matter how religious its populace, we want to have social institutions and a society at large that is pluralistic, respectful and accommodating of difference. When powerful private organisations operate in ways that institutionalise and propagate the exact opposite, their actions have a cost on wider society in the sense that norms form a key role in defining how society works. By having norms that discrimate, churches impose their discrimination indirectly on society. In a society with strong churches, their is a strong argument for preventing discrimination.

Your argument has a few holes, who decides what group is discriminating? I think they should defund groups like planned parenthood because they are a group that pushes an agenda that murders babies so do they count to get rid of?

Now the reason I make this argument is not to demand that churches be forced to cowtow to draconian legislation about what they can and cannot do, who they can hire etc, but to illustrate the point about how a decent government should be operating, and to justify the stance secularists take on this matter. Government has a responsibility to prevent socially harmful actions, from littering to discrimination. It's a good and debate worthy question to ask whether that should extend into the private sphere and how far. But the public sphere should be religion and sexuality neutral, no question, and a good government would robustly defend that principle.

Should the government go through my Bible and line out the verses it feels is acceptable to speak about. Can I talk about hell? Who decides what is offensive?

[lastcallhall]

This is why I agreed you're probably a really great person at the end of the day. You're genuinely just following what you believe to be true -- it's not done out of malice, I can tell that. But at the end of the day, I still can't visit the love of my life in a hospital if she were dying because of your ideology. Is that fair?

Thanks again, you really seem like a very warm and nice person. I actually agree and it was pointed out the law was changes so anyone can visit someone in the hospital. That is wonderful because if I want to visit my buddy I don't see why that matters.

Can you tell how deeply that can hurt someone in the worst possible way when it has to do with someone they love with a big "L?" What if because of someone else's opinion you couldn't visit your wife? How would you feel about that?

I agree, I would break the law and then get arrested

I don't think you've really thought this "we're already equal" argument through, anyway: like Abraxas brought up, this same argument could have been used for interracial marriage.

Can you please respond to Abraxas's post? I'd really like to see how you think the argumentation is different at all. If blacks aren't allowed to marry whites and vice versa, couldn't the bigots of the day have said "Oh, but we're already equal: I can't marry a black person either?"

I answered his post

Regardless of your intentions, at the end of the day it just seems like you're grasping at straws to try to justify what is obviously on its face a dose of plain ol' school bigotry. "What those people do is icky to me so I don't want to allow them to do it."

I am sorry I don't think I am grasping at straws nor do I see it as bigotry. I see the homosexual lifestyle as sin and like any sin I think it is offensive to God. It is your business what you do in your private life but I will pick the Bible and what it says over being PC.

I get that you feel the Big Guy is looking over your shoulder. But didn't the Big Guy say to render unto Caesar his due? Doesn't that include following the American ideal of equality and justice for everyone? You're not endorsing homosexuality if you just ignore homosexual equality legislation. But you sure are causing a lot of harm -- a lot of genuine, heart wrenching, tear inducing suffering in a lot of good people when you actively support legislation aimed to diminish our rights and oppress us into 2nd class citizens just because we love someone that you find icky.

I am sorry if it hurts you and it is not my intention but I know it must hurt. I do not look at you as a 2nd class citizen but I think you are being deceived about the lifestyle.

Don't think for one minute that supporting anti-gay legislation is harmless or Godly.

I have several Bible verses that speak against the homosexual lifestyle, so I think it is Godly.

It hurts people. A lot. It hurts people at their core. It hurts badly. That's why I've genuinely said -- and meant it -- that I hope no one ever tells you who you can love or not. I hope no one ever tells you, "Oh, I know you love that person but that's fine. But I don't believe you should have the same rights as married people, sorry." I hope no one trivializes your feelings like that, even if they might disagree with who you love. I hope they never reduce you to the point that you're less free than your brethren and sisters just because, well, your brethren and sisters don't think you should have the same rights as them because what you're doing is "icky" to them. I hope that never happens to you, or you will feel our pain -- and I bet you won't like it any more than we do.

You are not less free than I am because again I can't marry a man either. It is a bad argument.

[lastcallhall]

I like to think that if I believed those things I'd have the integrity and respect for basic human values to recognise the need for equality under law in a secular republic, and that religious values cannot be used as the basis for discriminating against any group. The denial of rights that are given to other groups is discrimination, and I hope that whatever I believed about the supernatural, I'd still be against that.

What shows more integrity to stand by God's word or cave to the PC crowd? I think to stand on God's word shows stronger integrity.

[lastcallhall]

How does this jibe with, "If I ain't with Jesus, then I'm against Him"?

If we're not legislating against hate speech, are we not then legislating for hate speech?

That said, this has the appearance of a go/nogo situation - either we allow homosexuals the very freedoms we reserve for ourselves, or we don't. I, for one, will stand with my fellow human beings who seek equality and justice for all. Homosexual marriage does nothing to prevent folks from continuing in their hatred. That's their choice. And I hate 'em for it!

I still do not think I hate anyone, I feel I am trying to tell them the eternal truth about turning away from the sinful lifestyle and that is better than being PC. I understand your position and respect that you feel to take a stand for what you believe.

[micatala]

How not? How are same sex marriage laws any different than miscegenation laws?

You said it isn't discrimination because nobody is allowed to marry same sex. By that reasoning miscegenation laws aren't discrimanatory because nobody is allowed to marry a different race under them. The courts struck that down as unconstitutional because they do not accept your line of reasoning.

It is a good point and the difference with not allowing a white person to marry a black person was do to purely personal hatreds and biases. I know that you feel this is the exact same thing but it is not and here is why. We are all God's children and we are all equal. There is no reason to not let someone ride a bus or eat at a cafe because of something they can't help. Homosexuality is called a sin in the Bible and is a lifestyle that you choose to live. I think the harm is not me saying that the harm comes by society accepting sin and calling it something other than sin. Being black is not a sin, practicing the homosexual lifestyle is and I have to take a stand even on tough issues.

Granted being black is not a sin.

However, this position still seems to me to be highly problematical.

For example, consider the 10 commandments, listed as follows:

"And God spoke all these words, saying: 'I am the LORD your God

ONE: 'You shall have no other gods before Me.'

TWO: 'You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.'

THREE: 'You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.'

FOUR: 'Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.'

FIVE: 'Honor your father and your mother.'

SIX: 'You shall not murder.'

SEVEN: 'You shall not commit adultery.'

EIGHT: 'You shall not steal.'

NINE: 'You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.'

TEN: 'You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.'

It would be a sin to violate any of these, at least accoring to a lot of Christians and Jews.

However, if enacting the first four into law would very clearly be blatantly unconstitutional according to the First Amendment. Of the other six, only 6 and 8 are typically legislated, although you could make a case that five and nine are at least partially legislated, the latter at least in a court of law.


As another example, Jesus teaches that divorce is sinful, except in the case of marital infidelity. This is contrary to OT understandings of divorce as sin, since divorce was permitted there.



Now, one can certainly have the theological opinion that gay sex is sinful and use that to say, at least theologically, gay marriage should not be allowed, but that should only apply to those who voluntarily ascribe to those religious beliefs.





To take your notion of sin and use that to justify banning gay marriage seems to be a rather blatant infringement of the religious and civil liberties of gay people.


It is also an inconsistent position, unless you are actually willing to support enacting legislation that makes ALL sins illegal, including the first four commandments.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 49:

I still do not think I hate anyone, I feel I am trying to tell them the eternal truth about turning away from the sinful lifestyle and that is better than being PC. I understand your position and respect that you feel to take a stand for what you believe.

I 'preciate that lastcallhall has been really civil, open, and honest about his position. I retract any implication that he is debating this issue from a position of hatred. That said, just as he "believes in his soul" (my term), that homosexuals should not be allowed to marry, I believe "in my soul" that the act of denying others what one reserves for themself is an act of hatred, and I further contend, hatred or not, it is an unconstitutional act in this regard.

We oppress others at risk of them rising up and oppressing us.

I contend this is an act of willful oppression, of oppression contrary to principles of "do unto others" (which so many theists spout), and an act of oppression for which the oppressor has the ability to avoid - but for their own "deeply held belief" that homosexuals should be denied the very rights theists enjoy.

Has anyone shown this god actually holds this opinion? No. All we have are "deeply held beliefs". In this case, a "deeply held belief that 'you' are not worthy of what I myself am enjoying".

If that ain't inborn, learned, or otherwise human hatred, I can't imagine what would be.

What if my god says that Christians are to be oppressed? Do I get to run around doing some oppressing?

No. I tell my god to shut the hell up and leave us humans alone.