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?

[Meow Mix]

Gee, I wonder if that has anything to do with hateful people like you?

Stop the namecalling, will you? This is from a previous post showing that in the Netherlands (about as gay-friendly a place you will find), suicide rates are still high, which kind of blows your theory.

Granted, it was an instance of namecalling -- but you know exactly what you're doing. You're fishing for negative statistics, ignoring the positive ones, just so you can make your vitriolic position on homosexuals known. Why do I say that it's vitriolic? Because you should know that whether or not gays get cancer or whether or not gays commit suicide has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not they should have equal rights even if true. It seems fairly obvious that you just want to portray it as it has been historically portrayed by those who fear and misunderstand it: as an illness.

Have you ever considered that perhaps these studies that "find" all these problems with homosexuals (physically and mentally) is because they're asking the most flambuoyant and promiscuous gays?

Here's a hint: you aren't going to find typical representatives of homosexuality at gay bars or in gay parades. Every group has sex addicts, the mentally ill, social misfits, etc. and there seems to be a certain problem with sampling the most socially fringe elements of homosexuals (because they're the loudest) and treating all homosexuality as if it follows their habits.

Will you agree that's probably not a very representative sample of homosexuality? What if I were to post "statistics" on Christianity by sampling snake handlers and the Westboro Baptist Church and then insinuate that therefore, Christians must be mentally ill? How would you like that?

Here's a question for you: If a Christian on this forum committed suicide after reading your anti-Christian rants, would it be your fault?

What anti-Christian rants? I've never attempted to argue that Christians are fundamentally ill in any way because I have respect for fellow human beings.

Homosexuality is not inherently less healthy than heterosexuality mentally or physically in any way. All of the statistics you've been publishing are instead either arguments against prolific promiscuity (which would apply to heterosexuals too) or come from sampling the most socially deviant homosexuals.

Since homosexuals are defined by sexuality, it's not surprising that there's a thriving sex subculture within it. I agree that such unadulturated promiscuity and anonymity is harmful socially, physically, and psychologically. What needs to be recognized is that heterosexuals have sex subcultures too -- are we listing off negative statistics against heterosexuality because of them? Of course not! So why can't we have the common courtesy not to treat homosexuality like a psychological disorder based on the actions of a few homosexuals who likely do have psychological disorders...?

[East of Eden]

From Post 306:

...Christians today make a similar mistake when they ignore what God says about homosexual activity.

If only Christians could show their god has spoken on the issue.

Instead we typically get such as, "I believe God said to hate on homosexuals,

Cite? God doesn't hate homosexuals any more than He hates alcoholics, in fact He offers them a way out.

[Meow Mix]

I get to wake up to this every day. Nobody's ever going to convince me that it's unhealthy or that I'm mentally ill:

[East of Eden]

Gee, I wonder if that has anything to do with hateful people like you?

Stop the namecalling, will you? This is from a previous post showing that in the Netherlands (about as gay-friendly a place you will find), suicide rates are still high, which kind of blows your theory.

Granted, it was an instance of namecalling -- but you know exactly what you're doing. You're fishing for negative statistics, ignoring the positive ones, just so you can make your vitriolic position on homosexuals known. Why do I say that it's vitriolic? Because you should know that whether or not gays get cancer or whether or not gays commit suicide has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not they should have equal rights even if true. It seems fairly obvious that you just want to portray it as it has been historically portrayed by those who fear and misunderstand it: as an illness.

Have you ever considered that perhaps these studies that "find" all these problems with homosexuals (physically and mentally) is because they're asking the most flambuoyant and promiscuous gays?

Here's a hint: you aren't going to find typical representatives of homosexuality at gay bars or in gay parades. Every group has sex addicts, the mentally ill, social misfits, etc. and there seems to be a certain problem with sampling the most socially fringe elements of homosexuals (because they're the loudest) and treating all homosexuality as if it follows their habits.

Will you agree that's probably not a very representative sample of homosexuality? What if I were to post "statistics" on Christianity by sampling snake handlers and the Westboro Baptist Church and then insinuate that therefore, Christians must be mentally ill? How would you like that?

Here's a question for you: If a Christian on this forum committed suicide after reading your anti-Christian rants, would it be your fault?

What anti-Christian rants? I've never attempted to argue that Christians are fundamentally ill in any way because I have respect for fellow human beings.

Homosexuality is not inherently less healthy than heterosexuality mentally or physically in any way. All of the statistics you've been publishing are instead either arguments against prolific promiscuity (which would apply to heterosexuals too) or come from sampling the most socially deviant homosexuals.

Since homosexuals are defined by sexuality, it's not surprising that there's a thriving sex subculture within it. I agree that such unadulturated promiscuity and anonymity is harmful socially, physically, and psychologically. What needs to be recognized is that heterosexuals have sex subcultures too -- are we listing off negative statistics against heterosexuality because of them? Of course not! So why can't we have the common courtesy not to treat homosexuality like a psychological disorder based on the actions of a few homosexuals who likely do have psychological disorders...?

You're ignoring that even a gay rights group admitted their community suffers from much more disease. That lifestyle is more deadly than cigarette smoking.

[East of Eden]

I get to wake up to this every day. Nobody's ever going to convince me that it's unhealthy or that I'm mentally ill:

Bully for you, but a photo really doesn't prove anything.

[Meow Mix]

You're ignoring that even a gay rights group admitted their community suffers from much more disease. That lifestyle is more deadly than cigarette smoking.

EoE, don't play dumb with me. In what way does that mean they haven't sampled exactly the community I was just talking about?

[Meow Mix]

Bully for you, but a photo really doesn't prove anything.

Er... what exactly did you think I was trying to prove? It was an appeal to emotion and nothing more.

[JoeyKnothead]

I get to wake up to this every day. Nobody's ever going to convince me that it's unhealthy or that I'm mentally ill:

HAWT!

[JoeyKnothead]

I think the argument of increased mental problems and such in the gay community doesn't accurately reflect the fact they still live in a society that is prodominantly heterosexual, with various images and notions that present heterosexuality as the "norm" or "better" - for right or wrong.

That a certain group encounters more problems doesn't seem sufficient warrant to restrict their rights to marriage.

[JoeyKnothead]

Bully for you, but a photo really doesn't prove anything.

Er... what exactly did you think I was trying to prove? It was an appeal to emotion and nothing more.

Worked for me