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?

[East of Eden]

Finally, I must again point out that this decision against Elane's photography in no way keeps either Elaine the individual or her partner in business from expressing their opinions or practicing their religion. This continual conflation of the personal versus business aspects of this case is not logical or valid.

If Elane's business is photographing weddings, and gay marriage is not legal in NM, then she has a valid right to not perform her duties. Legally, there is no wedding to shoot. What if someone wanted to marry two of their dogs and demanded Elane do the shoot?

At the very least, Elane should clearly state her opinions about gay marriage, and what she feels God says about that arrangement. Who knows, she might even convert them.

[Meow Mix]

I don't understand the point of listing off this or that death toll related to this or that incident/dictator. In what way are these deaths supposed to mean anything for theism or atheism?

Secondly, in what way is homosexuality "deadly?" Why does it matter if it's "non life-giving?"

How has this conversation gotten so far off track into fallacies and vitriolic anti-gay biases?

[JohnPaul]

I don't understand the point of listing off this or that death toll related to this or that incident/dictator. In what way are these deaths supposed to mean anything for theism or atheism?

Such death lists are a very important record of past performance by Christians, useful when deciding whether Christians should now be allowed to impose their beliefs on our government and public policy.

Historians estimate that more than 5 million horrible murders and atrocities were deliberately committed by the Christian church in the Crusades, the Inquisition and the Witch Hunts during the centuries of Christian rule in Europe. This number includes only deliberate individual murders, and does not count millions of casualties of the Christian religious wars during the same period.

Historians derived this estimate from the records of individual churches in Europe. Remember that these people were proud of the "God's work" they were doing and kept careful records, many of which still exist today. Clergymen even wrote textbooks on methods or torture to be used by the church. Towns were burned, families butchered, even family pets tortured and hanged as "emissaries of Satan!"

Some historians have called Christianity "the most murderous and bloodthirsty institution ever devised by man!" Do you want them running your government for you now?

John

[Lux]

1. Is what happened to the New Mexico couple proof that gay marriage will threaten christians and the church from living our faith?

No. It shouldn't have to.

Sadly, frivolous lawsuits and other legal interventions are very common in the United States, and that's a reality for anyone running a business: they run the risk of someone suing them because of the most ridiculous things.

That photography studio faced a legal intervention because they refused service to someone, when in reality someone who owns their own business should have the right to decide which gigs they take and which ones they don't (for instance, any company has the right to not provide services to churches that are against gay marriage). The couple should have moved onto another photographer, end of story. BUT... the fact that this particular couple did this does not mean that gay marriage itself is necessarily a threat to Christians or Christianity. An example does not make a rule, and this particular couple is by no indication representative of the LGBT community. To imply so is an enormous generalization.

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?

Good heeavens, no. I would personally be offended by such a mixture of church & state.

I do not see why people are not OK with the idea of gay marriage being legalized, and religious institutions reserving their right to accept or decline to perform them. Orthodox Jews don't eat pork, but you don't see them chanting for the outlawing of pork meat. Why can't orthodox Christians grants us all that same grace? Refuse membership to whoever you want, but let the rest of us make our own choices. Someone you (generic 'you') don't approve of is not ipso facto a threat to your institution.

[Meow Mix]

Some historians have called Christianity "the most murderous and bloodthirsty institution ever devised by man!" Do you want them running your government for you now?

John

Er, but I think these murder lists are nothing more than a stereotype. I know a lot of Christians that I would gladly trust to run my government. Same with atheists.

[East of Eden]

Secondly, in what way is homosexuality "deadly?"

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articl ... o0075.html

According to one study, gay men's lives are shortened by 20 years, which makes the effects of cigarette smoking pale in comparison.

[JohnPaul]

Some historians have called Christianity "the most murderous and bloodthirsty institution ever devised by man!" Do you want them running your government for you now?

John

Er, but I think these murder lists are nothing more than a stereotype. I know a lot of Christians that I would gladly trust to run my government. Same with atheists.

I have known a few myself. My mother was a Christian. It is only when Christians get together in bunches that they become dangerous. Although I believe a lone Christian did kill an old homosexual in PA this past February, with a sock full of rocks, because the Bible told him to stone homosexuals to death.

Years ago, while visiting a friend in a small town in Arizona, I witnessed a crowd of a hundred or more local Christians, some of them literally frothing at the mouth as they blocked customers and screamed out prayers to their God to damn the owner of a small store which was selling rock music. It was not a pretty sight. They were led and urged on by a representative of the American Family Association, a fanatic Christian organization stationed in Alabama, I believe.

The Nazis are only a stereotype now, but Germany is still so afraid of them that even the melody of the Horst Wessel Lied (Nazi Party anthem) is banned there, and the Nazi salute, even as a joke, is punishable by prison.

John

[micatala]

Finally, I must again point out that this decision against Elane's photography in no way keeps either Elaine the individual or her partner in business from expressing their opinions or practicing their religion. This continual conflation of the personal versus business aspects of this case is not logical or valid.

If Elane's business is photographing weddings, and gay marriage is not legal in NM, then she has a valid right to not perform her duties. Legally, there is no wedding to shoot.

Well, I can see the point, but the problem is, the law does not seem to define Elane's business by the events she shoots. You are certainly right that, in this case, there is no officially legal wedding to shoot. However, the law does not seem to consider that relevant to the services Elane provides as a public accomodation.

In addition, whether gay marriage is legal or not does not and probably cannot stop same-sex people from referring to their ceremonies as marriages. The law in NM won't recognize it as a marriage, of course. As I recall, the couple called it a commitment ceremony.

The problem is the categories and definitions you and others are using, while they may make sense from the standpoint of ordinary conversation, do not jibe with the common legal understandings of these terms. You can certainly use these terms any way you want, but, like Elane, you can't expect the law to agree with your usage.

It would be the same with a gay couple who went through a ceremony they termed a "marriage" and call themselves "married" but live in a jurisdication that does not legally recognize their marriage. There usage is irrelevant to the law.

What if someone wanted to marry two of their dogs and demanded Elane do the shoot?

I really don't know what the law would say. From the case decision, the key seems to be that Elane's refused to do the shoot because the people involved were gay, or at least because it was a "gay ceremony." It's possible if she offered another reason, there may have not been an issue, but that is speculation on my part.

If someone came to Elane and said they wanted her to do some photos of their dogs, without saying anything about a marriage, would Elane have any reason not to do the shoot? Would she have an legal reason to refuse to do the shoot? I honestly don't know the answers to those questions. Certainly, she could claim she is booked solid and doesn't have time and probably get away with that even if it were not true.


I think it is worth noting the court's, including SCOTUS, have used the term "invidious discrimination". The word "invidious" has the connotation of denigration. Elane's trouble seems to me to be the result of giving a reason that was at least perceived to be "invidious discrimination," even if she did not intend it to be that way.

At the very least, Elane should clearly state her opinions about gay marriage, and what she feels God says about that arrangement. Who knows, she might even convert them.

No one is saying Elane cannot express her opinions, religious or otherwise, as a private citizen. Whether she could express what were perceived to be discriminatory opinions as part of serving her clientele is another matter.

Would it be OK, for example, for a restaurant owner who would rather not serve blacks to agree to serve them, but then to make denigrating racial remarks to the customers?



Whether she likes it or not, running a business does come with certain responsibilities and restrictions. You can argue that the restrictions as they were enforced here were unfair. The problem is, I haven't seen anyone come up with a general, legally applicable criteria that would allow what Elane did to be legal without also allowing other kinds of discrimination which nearly everyone would consider inappropriate.



Does anyone have one?

[micatala]

Secondly, in what way is homosexuality "deadly?"

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articl ... o0075.html

According to one study, gay men's lives are shortened by 20 years, which makes the effects of cigarette smoking pale in comparison.

If you use highly selective methods of picking your data, then of course you can probably prove anything.

Your link quotes:

An epidemiological study from Vancouver, Canada of data tabulated between 1987 and 1992 for AIDS-related deaths reveals that male homosexual or bisexual practitioners lost up to 20 years of life expectancy.

One study in one Candian city over a 5-year span from 20 years ago is pretty poor support for your general conclusion.

And, the footnote for this notes the study notes they were focused on HIV.

R. S. Hogg, S. A. Strathdee, et al., "Modeling the Impact of HIV Disease on Mortality in Gay and Bisexual Men," International Journal of Epidemiology, 26(3): 657-661, p. 659 (1997). Death as the result of HIV infection has dropped significantly since 1996. "Life Expectancy Hits New High in 2000; Mortality Declines for Several Leading Causes of Death," CDC News Release, October 10, 2001, www.cdc.gov/nchs/releases/01news/mort2k.htm. Nevertheless, it remains a significant factor in shortened life expectancy for homosexual practitioners.

Notice the disclaimers. Even these authors are not audacious enough to claim the numbers from this study are applicable to more recent times, never mind the limitations in location.


I am sure we can show data that support promiscuity lowers life expectancy, and you can probably even find legitimate data to show male homosexuals are somewhat more promiscuous than males on average.

This still does not show that homosexuality is somehow inherently deadly.

Your argument is highly fallacious.



Following the type of logic used here, we could conclude that being a black male is "a deadly lifestyle" by citing a study using data from certain urban neighborhoods.

[JohnPaul]

Secondly, in what way is homosexuality "deadly?"

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articl ... o0075.html

According to one study, gay men's lives are shortened by 20 years, which makes the effects of cigarette smoking pale in comparison.

If you use highly selective methods of picking your data, then of course you can probably prove anything.

Your link quotes:

An epidemiological study from Vancouver, Canada of data tabulated between 1987 and 1992 for AIDS-related deaths reveals that male homosexual or bisexual practitioners lost up to 20 years of life expectancy.

One study in one Candian city over a 5-year span from 20 years ago is pretty poor support for your general conclusion.

And, the footnote for this notes the study notes they were focused on HIV.

R. S. Hogg, S. A. Strathdee, et al., "Modeling the Impact of HIV Disease on Mortality in Gay and Bisexual Men," International Journal of Epidemiology, 26(3): 657-661, p. 659 (1997). Death as the result of HIV infection has dropped significantly since 1996. "Life Expectancy Hits New High in 2000; Mortality Declines for Several Leading Causes of Death," CDC News Release, October 10, 2001, www.cdc.gov/nchs/releases/01news/mort2k.htm. Nevertheless, it remains a significant factor in shortened life expectancy for homosexual practitioners.

Notice the disclaimers. Even these authors are not audacious enough to claim the numbers from this study are applicable to more recent times, never mind the limitations in location.

I am sure we can show data that support promiscuity lowers life expectancy, and you can probably even find legitimate data to show male homosexuals are somewhat more promiscuous than males on average.

This still does not show that homosexuality is somehow inherently deadly.

Your argument is highly fallacious.

Following the type of logic used here, we could conclude that being a black male is "a deadly lifestyle" by citing a study using data from certain urban neighborhoods.

The data alleged to show higher death rate among homosexuals reminds me very strongly of the kind of data used by anti-smoking crusaders more than 20 years ago to "prove" that smoking caused lung cancer and heart attacks. You will recall that they claimed that 400,000 people died every year from smoking-caused heart attacks, when they had simply counted every heart attack death suffered by a smoker as "caused" by smoking.

Another British study refuted the lung-cancer scare by showing that total non-smokers in London had a higher rate of lung cancer than did very heavy smokers in New Zealand. If automobiles received the same attention that cigarettes have, not a single automobile would be allowed on the road!

John