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?

[dianaiad]

From Post 202:

Tell me.

How does someone else's belief in some 'sky daddy' affect YOU?

It prevents me from buying alcohol on Sunday for one.

Poor baby. Stock up on Saturday. Tell me; are you the ONLY person who can't buy booze on Sunday? Oh, and what does the law SAY about the reason for not selling booze on Sunday? Somthin' tells me that the reason for it is not religious....or trust me, bub, you'd be able to buy booze on Sunday.

As to that, sir, the only reason you HAVE a weekend with a day to rest...and drink booze...is because of someone else's belief in some 'sky daddy.'

It forces me to continually refute unwarranted, outlandish claims.

Someone is holding a gun to your head, that you have to speak up and 'refute unwarranted, outlandish claims?' You can't just live your life without doing so? Odd, so many people manage...

It forces me to stay on guard against those who seek to water down science education. It forces me to stay on guard against those who would oppress their fellow human beings.

And without religion, you wouldn't have to guard against such things? Stalin, Pol Pot, Lenin, the "Young Turks" would have been rather pleased to hear that. Some of them might even still be alive and doing what they did.

Are you not free to mock and denigrate them?

Sure I can. However, I was speaking specifically against the oppression of others by theists who think they have a god-given right to refuse others their rights.

What right? The right to force someone to provide a service that they do not advertise, wouldn't offer to anyone else, and is against their religion, just because you think you are special and deserve it?

ARe you not free to prohibit them from praying anywhere near where you are?

No. A silent prayer will go undetected.

Right; so you have the right to tell others that they have freedom of speech...as long as they don't actually say anything?

How are you ANY different, in any way, from Elane Photography?

I understand that to be a public business (or a decent human being), I shouldn't discriminate against folks based on who they love.

That, to me, is a huge difference.

Ah, now there's the thing. "Shouldn't' is vastly different from 'can't'.
No, they should not have been discriminatory in that way. I would not have. However, the 'you have to see things my way and do what I want you to do or I will ruin you" attitude is even more wrong than the original discrimination.

Having a photographer refuse to shoot a commitment ceremony? The photographer loses money and reputation, becomes known for being a bigot....and the couple finds another photographer who would do a better job anyway.

This way? Sorry. It REEKS of oppression--and not against gays. The gay couple wasn't hurt in any way by this. Elan photography was destroyed. How is this NOT oppression beyond acceptability?

You do not wish to be forced to participate in a religious ceremony (like a prayer at a graduation ceremony, or even to have the valedictorian thank God in his/her speech) and enforce that by lawsuit. You have the absolute freedom to choose whether you will go to church, or not.

But I don't have the freedom, as an individual of conscience, to pledge allegiance to this nation, a nation for which I've served, unless I also accept that whole "under God" deal - which I don't.

Don't go there; that irritates me, too. Not the part about 'under God' in and of itself, particularly, but...the original writer didn't put it in there. That is annoying.

HOWEVER, saying this doesn't violate any religious principle you have, does it? By the way, you are quite free to not say it. Nobody is going to put you in jail, or sue you, or destroy your livelihood if you skip that part--or skip it altogether.

I submit that you are worse. You not only want to make sure you don't have to participate in any religious ceremony, or have one imposed upon you, you want to make absolutely certain that religious folks MUST be forced to participate in yours.

Poppycock.

Really convincing rejoinder, there, Joey.

I endeavor to make religious bigots - as properly defined - see the error of their ways regarding those they seek to oppress. What they do in the privacy of their churches is their business (with some caveats regarding safety and such).

There is a very BIG difference between arguing with them, debating with them, and attempting to show them the "error of their ways,".....and destroying their ability to make a living, suing them, forcing them by law to do it your way, and completely destroying THEIR right to free speech.

In all honesty, the hypocrisy is making me grind my teeth.

Grind 'em down to stumps for all I care. I have no sympathy for the oppressor.

Nor do I...and right now, that oppressor would be (given who was truly hurt in this one) NOT the photographer who simply refused to participate in an event that was against her religion.

[dianaiad]

I don't think it is that simple. Photography is an art form. The photographers at Elane are artists. I think removing an artist's ability to be selective in their subject matter violates the artist's first amendment rights. I don't think the government should be allowed to compel speech just because somebody shows up with a checkbook.

There are photographers who make art, for art's sake like Ansel Adams and Dorothea Lange then showcase in galleries and sell the art as art, and there are photographers who contract jobs.

Contract work IE portraits, weddings, commercial (photographing products for ads), journalism, etc. are works for hire. I want 20 8X10 glossies of that car over there so I can sell it, is work for hire, as is photograph my wedding for a fee.

When you contract for work like this, yes it's "art", but it is really more commercial contract work, and subject to commercial law.

In the case of Elan, that was strictly contract work done under a real contract. You can't tell me there is an artistic difference photographing a gay couple as opposed to a straight couple.

Bob

Of course there is. Quite a few of the 'standard' wedding shots would be completely inappropriate for a same-sex wedding, and shots that would be perfect for a same-sex wedding involving women would be ridiculous for two men, and vice versa. The idea is to shoot an event that will reflect the special nature of it, NOT to mock and make fun of it.....

and shooting a same sex wedding as if it were a heterosexual one would do exactly that. They are NOT the same. Here: this is the website of a photography studio that specializes in same sex weddings: http://www.wearefamilyphoto.com/flash_index.php, in San Francisco. Take a peek at how those ceremonies are photographed. Notice what is included---and what ISN'T.

Perhaps it's just a different point of view for me. My daughter IS a photographer, and as I've already mentioned (SEVERAL TIMES NOW) she would do a same sex ceremony--but not until after she'd done a lot of research first. They are very, very different occasions, at least in terms of shooting them.

[dianaiad]

In all honesty, the hypocrisy is making me grind my teeth.

I feel ya, babe.

Man, I may save and frame this as the most classic ad numerum fallacy I've EVER seen.

[dianaiad]

Would a commissioned poet who refused to compose a poem for a gay marriage be within their rights?

That depends. If the poet advertised "Poems for weddings", and that was his or her business, then it would be illegal to deny the work based on bigotry. The same would hold true for the painter and sculptor.

Can a person have their free speech curtailed whenever somebody decides to write them a check?

This has nothing to do with free speech, it has to do with commerce. If you are in the business of providing a service to the public, you cannot discriminate about who you sell your services to. Simple.

Bob

I don't think it is that simple. Photography is an art form. The photographers at Elane are artists. I think removing an artist's ability to be selective in their subject matter violates the artist's first amendment rights. I don't think the government should be allowed to compel speech just because somebody shows up with a checkbook.

While photography can be considered an art form, doing photo shoots for a wedding is not an 'art form' it is a service.

Really? Tell that to Jan Van Eyck; Eyck, Jan van
The Arnolfini Marriage
[/img]

[Strider324]

In all honesty, the hypocrisy is making me grind my teeth.

I feel ya, babe.

Man, I may save and frame this as the most classic ad numerum fallacy I've EVER seen.

Well, you could. But then someone might point out your total misunderstanding of what that particular fallacy means, and then...well... awkward!


"Happy is he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks." - Ps 137:9

[SailingCyclops]

In fact, the gay woman mislead/lied to her, by asking for quotes to photograph a wedding. By not telling her that this was not a wedding, but a commitment ceremony, the woman was lying to Elane, who had made it quite clear that she only did 'Traditional weddings."

Commitment Ceremonies mean many different things to different people. A commitment ceremony can look just like a wedding, complete with church, wedding gown, and hundreds of guests -- but no marriage license. Or, it can be the most alternative event imaginable: a ritual to bless your relationship, or just a big party to celebrate your love. ....

Commitment Ceremonies are not necessarily for gay people. There is no reason that Elane would have objected to a Commitment Ceremony for a straight couple. It was the bigoted gay thing she objected to. That is quite clear from her emails.

As far a lying is concerned, the gay woman's actions were more consistent with gathering evidence of a crime than anything else. Don't forget, the entire transaction was done via email, where there is a clear record of the infraction.

The actual lying by omission was on the part of Elane, she only made it "quite clear" about her bias after she was informed that the event was for a gay couple.

15. Elane Photography also had an unwritten company policy, which was shared between its co-owners, Elaine Huguenin and Jonathan Huguenin, that Elane Photography would not photograph any image or event which was contrary to the religious beliefs of its co-owners.

Had she made it clear on her website that she would not photograph anything "which was contrary to her religious beliefs", stating clearly what those were, she would most likely have gone un-noticed; certainly the gay couple would have simply skipped her site altogether.

In the end, it was her lie of omission along with her bigotry which trapped her.

Bob

[SailingCyclops]

As to that, sir, the only reason you HAVE a weekend with a day to rest...and drink booze...is because of someone else's belief in some 'sky daddy.'

Yup! They are called Blue laws

A blue law is a type of law, typically found in the United States and Canada, designed to enforce religious standards, particularly the observance of Sunday as a day of worship or rest, and a restriction on Sunday shopping. Most have been repealed, have been declared unconstitutional, or are simply unenforced; though prohibitions on the sale of alcoholic beverages or prohibitions of almost all commerce on Sundays are still enforced in many areas. Blue laws often prohibit an activity only during certain hours and there are usually exceptions to the prohibition of commerce, like grocery and drug stores. In some places blue laws may be enforced due to religious principles, but others are retained as a matter of tradition or out of convenience.[1]

Laws of this type are also found in religious cultures such as Israel, where the day concerned is Saturday rather than Sunday, and most countries with Muslim majority, where the month of Ramadan is involved.[2]

They come right out of bible-thumper territory.

Bob

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 209:

Poor baby.

Sarcasm is a rather weak response here. Notice, alcohol is legal every day but the one day Christians think is so holier than the rest.

Stock up on Saturday.

Yeah, that's what our former governor said too.

Interestingly enough, he was also for the oppression of homosexuals.

And Christian.

Tell me; are you the ONLY person who can't buy booze on Sunday?

No. The law doesn't specifically refer to me.

What this has to do with the issue is anyone's guess.

Oh, and what does the law SAY about the reason for not selling booze on Sunday?

Actually, it now allows local communities to decide - and wouldn't ya know it, mine is chock full of evangelicals.

Somthin' tells me that the reason for it is not religious....or trust me, bub, you'd be able to buy booze on Sunday.

Of course, outlawing Sunday sales has nothing to do with religion.

As to that, sir, the only reason you HAVE a weekend with a day to rest...and drink booze...is because of someone else's belief in some 'sky daddy.'

LOL

When I was able to work I was expected to work on Sunday, and every other day of the week. Of course I didn't really mind, as I love construction. There's been more'n a time or two though, were I've had Christian bosses who would love to carry on about how wonderful their weekends off were, and how great a day they had on Sunday, and "How much work did you get done this weekend?"

It forces me to continually refute unwarranted, outlandish claims.

Someone is holding a gun to your head, that you have to speak up and 'refute unwarranted, outlandish claims?' You can't just live your life without doing so? Odd, so many people manage...

Is someone holding a gun to your head, forcing you to oppress homosexuals?

Odd, so many people manage to allow others the freedoms they seek for themselves.

It forces me to stay on guard against those who seek to water down science education. It forces me to stay on guard against those who would oppress their fellow human beings.

And without religion, you wouldn't have to guard against such things? Stalin, Pol Pot, Lenin, the "Young Turks" would have been rather pleased to hear that. Some of them might even still be alive and doing what they did.

I don't have Stalinists in my neck of the woods, nor Pol Potists, nor Leninists, nor Young Turks.

I have Christians to deal with.

Observers' note: See how she tried to skirt around the issue of Christians' attempts to water down science education and Christian attempts to oppress others?

This is a fairly common tactic - where a strawman is created in hopes of not having to debate the issue at hand.

What right? The right to force someone to provide a service that they do not advertise, wouldn't offer to anyone else, and is against their religion, just because you think you are special and deserve it?

Nope. Because it's the right thing to do. Funny how so many Christians are incapable of grasping such an elementary concept.

Right; so you have the right to tell others that they have freedom of speech...as long as they don't actually say anything?

I've never said such.

What I, and the courts, have said, is that religious folks shouldn't be allowed to proselytize to a captive audience under the auspices of government.

How are you ANY different, in any way, from Elane Photography?

I understand that to be a public business (or a decent human being), I shouldn't discriminate against folks based on who they love.

That, to me, is a huge difference.

Ah, now there's the thing. "Shouldn't' is vastly different from 'can't'.

Obviously. As the case shows, this woman was plenty capable of discrimination, and set about accomplishing her goal.

No, they should not have been discriminatory in that way. I would not have. However, the 'you have to see things my way and do what I want you to do or I will ruin you" attitude is even more wrong than the original discrimination.

Yet so often Christians seem compelled to do just that - "See it my way, or burn in Hell!"

Having a photographer refuse to shoot a commitment ceremony? The photographer loses money and reputation, becomes known for being a bigot....and the couple finds another photographer who would do a better job anyway.

An indication that karma is a real and genuine phenomenon.

This way? Sorry. It REEKS of oppression--and not against gays. The gay couple wasn't hurt in any way by this. Elan photography was destroyed. How is this NOT oppression beyond acceptability?

This has been explained to you throughout this thread. That you refuse to accept such, or are unable to incorporate this into your thinking is not my fault.

But I don't have the freedom, as an individual of conscience, to pledge allegiance to this nation, a nation for which I've served, unless I also accept that whole "under God" deal - which I don't.

Don't go there; that irritates me, too. Not the part about 'under God' in and of itself, particularly, but...the original writer didn't put it in there. That is annoying.

I think it's clear to all who read this thread that you would prefer we live under the oppressive boot of theocracy.

HOWEVER, saying this doesn't violate any religious principle you have, does it?

Sort of. It violates my "religious" principle of claiming fealty to a god I can't show exists - and compounding the error by forcing others to do so.

By the way, you are quite free to not say it. Nobody is going to put you in jail, or sue you, or destroy your livelihood if you skip that part--or skip it altogether.

Of course I don't hafta say it - that's beside the point. The point being that unless I say it, I have not pledged to my allegiance to this nation.

I submit that you are worse. You not only want to make sure you don't have to participate in any religious ceremony, or have one imposed upon you, you want to make absolutely certain that religious folks MUST be forced to participate in yours.

Poppycock.

Really convincing rejoinder, there, Joey.

Had you not snipped out the context, the observer could see why it is an excellently convincing rejoinder (as I note you do comment on the snipped context below).

I endeavor to make religious bigots - as properly defined - see the error of their ways regarding those they seek to oppress. What they do in the privacy of their churches is their business (with some caveats regarding safety and such).

There is a very BIG difference between arguing with them, debating with them, and attempting to show them the "error of their ways,".....and destroying their ability to make a living...

Um, actually, in Georgia, my home state, it is legal to fire someone for the simple suspicion that they are homosexuals.

So that argument doesn't wash with me. We are not seeing folks getting fired for being Christian, unless I s'pose if they're gay Christians, and how ironic would that be.

...suing them...

The ability to seek redress in the courts is a fundamental right. Would you prefer we did away with this system?

...forcing them by law to do it your way...

Unless of course, they do it the "Christian" way, then it's fine to enact such laws as bigotry and hatred towards others.

...and completely destroying THEIR right to free speech.

Your right to free speech ends when you open a public business - insofar as the "speech" you spout is discrimination.

...and right now, that oppressor would be (given who was truly hurt in this one) NOT the photographer who simply refused to participate in an event that was against her religion.

Agreed to a point - the oppressor would be that photographer's God, for filling her head full of the idea that oppression is a good thing; but then she'd bear a bit of the blame for following up on such.

[dianaiad]

In all honesty, the hypocrisy is making me grind my teeth.

I feel ya, babe.

Man, I may save and frame this as the most classic ad numerum fallacy I've EVER seen.

Well, you could. But then someone might point out your total misunderstanding of what that particular fallacy means, and then...well... awkward!


"Happy is he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks." - Ps 137:9

It MEANS, my friend, (in this case, certainly) that pointing out that there are more Christians than gay people (which is a problem in the first place since many gays are Christian) does NOT mean that it is impossible for the larger group (Christians) to be oppressed by the smaller one.

Shoot, just look at the antebellum south if you want to see an example of the majority being oppressed by the minority.

Or just about any absolute monarchy in history.

IN other words, Strider, I don't seem to be the one who doesn't know what 'appeal to numbers' means.

[dianaiad]

In fact, the gay woman mislead/lied to her, by asking for quotes to photograph a wedding. By not telling her that this was not a wedding, but a commitment ceremony, the woman was lying to Elane, who had made it quite clear that she only did 'Traditional weddings."

Commitment Ceremonies mean many different things to different people. A commitment ceremony can look just like a wedding, complete with church, wedding gown, and hundreds of guests -- but no marriage license. Or, it can be the most alternative event imaginable: a ritual to bless your relationship, or just a big party to celebrate your love. ....

Commitment Ceremonies are not necessarily for gay people. There is no reason that Elane would have objected to a Commitment Ceremony for a straight couple. It was the bigoted gay thing she objected to. That is quite clear from her emails.

Actually, it wasn't. She said 'traditional ceremonies." As well, commitment ceremonies may be for both straight and gay...but the event would be the same; an intention to join together to have a sexual relationship that is not marriage. It would be against her religion, and there is no reason to assume that she WOULD have anything to do with one for a heterosexual couple.

As far a lying is concerned, the gay woman's actions were more consistent with gathering evidence of a crime than anything else. Don't forget, the entire transaction was done via email, where there is a clear record of the infraction.

She was lying. It doesn't matter WHY. She was lying. Elaine did not lie, even once--which is why she got into trouble. She COULD have simply said that she was busy that week, and then seen to it that she was. Or on vacation. OR something.

The lying was on the part of the gay couple, all the way down the line. If she had been in law enforcement, it would have been entrapment, legally.

The actual lying by omission was on the part of Elane, she only made it "quite clear" about her bias after she was informed that the event was for a gay couple.

No, she advertised weddings, and she repeated 'traditional weddings.' She never advertised that she provided services for commitment ceremonies.

15. Elane Photography also had an unwritten company policy, which was shared between its co-owners, Elaine Huguenin and Jonathan Huguenin, that Elane Photography would not photograph any image or event which was contrary to the religious beliefs of its co-owners.

And this is a problem, why?

Do you think it would be a good thing if someone, by law, forced YOU to do something contrary to YOUR religious or ethical code? I believe that this is why they did not advertise services for 'commitment ceremonies.'

Had she made it clear on her website that she would not photograph anything "which was contrary to her religious beliefs", stating clearly what those were, she would most likely have gone un-noticed; certainly the gay couple would have simply skipped her site altogether.

Highly doubtful. That is not what the gay agenda is about; just look at the posts here on this thread.

In the end, it was her lie of omission along with her bigotry which trapped her.

Bob

She did not lie. No restaurant is required to list all the dishes they do NOT serve, nor are contractors required to have a list of all the jobs they will NOT do. One is only required to provide the services one offers, and which one advertises.