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?

[Scotracer]

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.

I take it you are referring to the Old Testament on this issue.

Well, if so, how do you explain the following admission from yourself:

I'm not saying the OT is pertinent only to Judaism, I'm saying the OT ceremonial, dietary, and disciplinary laws were pertinent only to the OT theocracy of Israel, and Judaism today, for those that choose to follow them. Really, this has been a settled issue in Christianity for 2,000 years. See Galatians.

If the OT isn't relevant any more...where do you base god's 'hatred' for homosexuals (or drunkards for that matter)?

[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.

I take it you are referring to the Old Testament on this issue.

Well, if so, how do you explain the following admission from yourself:

I'm not saying the OT is pertinent only to Judaism, I'm saying the OT ceremonial, dietary, and disciplinary laws were pertinent only to the OT theocracy of Israel, and Judaism today, for those that choose to follow them. Really, this has been a settled issue in Christianity for 2,000 years. See Galatians.

If the OT isn't relevant any more...where do you base god's 'hatred' for homosexuals (or drunkards for that matter)?

God hates sin, not people. The prohibitions against homosexual activity, and other sexual immorality were restated in the NT, the OT Jewish ceremonial and dietary laws were not. Again, see Galatians.

[Scotracer]

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.

I take it you are referring to the Old Testament on this issue.

Well, if so, how do you explain the following admission from yourself:

I'm not saying the OT is pertinent only to Judaism, I'm saying the OT ceremonial, dietary, and disciplinary laws were pertinent only to the OT theocracy of Israel, and Judaism today, for those that choose to follow them. Really, this has been a settled issue in Christianity for 2,000 years. See Galatians.

If the OT isn't relevant any more...where do you base god's 'hatred' for homosexuals (or drunkards for that matter)?

God hates sin, not people. The prohibitions against homosexual activity, and other sexual immorality were restated in the NT, the OT Jewish ceremonial and dietary laws were not. Again, see Galatians.

I am not going to back up your argument for you. Show your case.

[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.

I take it you are referring to the Old Testament on this issue.

Well, if so, how do you explain the following admission from yourself:

I'm not saying the OT is pertinent only to Judaism, I'm saying the OT ceremonial, dietary, and disciplinary laws were pertinent only to the OT theocracy of Israel, and Judaism today, for those that choose to follow them. Really, this has been a settled issue in Christianity for 2,000 years. See Galatians.

If the OT isn't relevant any more...where do you base god's 'hatred' for homosexuals (or drunkards for that matter)?

God hates sin, not people. The prohibitions against homosexual activity, and other sexual immorality were restated in the NT, the OT Jewish ceremonial and dietary laws were not. Again, see Galatians.

I am not going to back up your argument for you. Show your case.

I've not quite sure what your question is, but if it is the Old vs. New Covenant for the umpteenth time, here is a summary:

http://www.nlbchapel.org/covenant.htm

[SailingCyclops]

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,

Every minority group, who have been the target of derision, bigotry, and discrimination, have suffered higher instances of social, mental, and physical illnesses.

The Irish immigrants, the Italians, the Chinese, the freed slaves.... all who were the subject of oppression, suffered as a direct result of the oppression. The gay community is subject to the same sort of discrimination and bigotry that others suffered in the past, and the effect on that community is no different.

When some of the "Christians" here site higher instances of disease, suicide, alcoholism, STDs..... ask yourself, how much of that damage is directly related to the repression directed towards the gay community by "Christians". Remember? "Those filthy guineas", those "drunken Irish", those "niggers", "stinkin gooks"...... now it's "those disgusting queers", see? their lifestyle causes shorter life-spans, alcoholism, suicide, mental illness, and venereal disease. They should be stoned like god commanded!

Bob

[East of Eden]

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,

Every minority group, who have been the target of derision, bigotry, and discrimination, have suffered higher instances of social, mental, and physical illnesses.

The Irish immigrants, the Italians, the Chinese, the freed slaves.... all who were the subject of oppression, suffered as a direct result of the oppression. The gay community is subject to the same sort of discrimination and bigotry that others suffered in the past, and the effect on that community is no different.

Please see my post 307 in this thread. The Dutch accept homosexuality, yet gays there still suffer the same rates of mental illness inherent to that lifestyle.

When some of the "Christians" here site higher instances of disease, suicide, alcoholism, STDs..... ask yourself, how much of that damage is directly related to the repression directed towards the gay community by "Christians". Remember? "Those filthy guineas", those "drunken Irish", those "niggers", "stinkin gooks"...... now it's "those disgusting queers", see? their lifestyle causes shorter life-spans, alcoholism, suicide, mental illness, and venereal disease. They should be stoned like god commanded!
Bob

I'm against all abuse against persons with same-sex feelings, making your comments pretty much a red herring. BTW, citing facts about their lifestyle isn't abuse. As far as stoning gays, you must be thinking of Islam.

By your reasoning if a Christian ever committed suicide it would be the fault of those who regularly dump on Christianity on this forum.

[micatala]

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.

Well, let's examine that claim a little bit shall we?


But first, let's again reiterate that these questions are irrelevant.


I will ask East of Eden again to address the questions he has dodged over multiple threads.


Does East of Eden believe it is OK to disciminate against groups on the basis of non-immutable characeristics?


Can East of Eden provide examples of different treatment with respect to legal rights and privileges on the basis of statistics like higher death rates, higher promiscuity rates, etc.?














Now, back to East of Eden's statistics.

I will point out that East of Eden did not provide a link to that actual document by the gay rights group in Canada. Rather, we got an article from lifesitenews.com

I searched for the "complaint" which this article alludes to with no success so far. However, I did find that lifesitenews had a couple of instances at least of extremely inaccurate or biased reporting.



Here is one article, with the claim " A study which appears in the February issue of the International Journal of STD & AIDS, has found that "HIV-positive men who have sex with men are up to 90 times more likely than the general population to develop anal cancer." "

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archiv ... r/07032205

The next paragraph reads:

The study was based on data from 244 patients at the University of California - Los Angeles (UCLA) CARE clinic who had anal cytology screenings (similar to a pap smear) between February 2002 and December 2004. The UCLA authors of the study are: Ross D. Cranston, Steven.D. Hart , Jeffrey A. Gornbein, Sharon L. Hirschowitz, Galen Cortina, and Ardis.A. Moe.

Now, the headline does note that the study is of HIV positive men, but the article downplays that key point.


Is anyone surprised that a group of HIV-positive men has a higher death rate or higher disease rates than other people? Does this article say anything about the larger gay community?

No it doesn't, but you wouldn't get that from lifesitenews.

In fact, here is the full title of the study, conveniently left out by lifesitenews.

Cranston R D, Hart S D, Gornbein J A, Hirschowitz S L, Cortina G, Moe A A. The Prevalence of Abnormal Anal Cytology and the Predictive Value of Abnormal Anal Cytology to Diagnose Anal Dysplasia in a Population of HIV-Positive Men who Have Sex with Men. Int J STD and AIDS. 2007 Feb;18(2):77-80

In addition, the lifesitenews article refers to the 20-year reduction in life expectancy, but if you dig a bit, this seems to refer to the same old study from Vancouver that has already been discussed. So, this is not corraborating evidence of the initial claim, only a repetition of a claim based on that single small study.


In fact, it is possible the rainbow coalition simply repeated that data in their claim, as I was able to find allusion to it in another of their documents, an earlier one from 2006.

http://www.rainbowhealth.ca/documents/e ... llness.pdf

Although there is still extensive work to do in collecting information about the health and wellness of GLBT people, what the available data indicates is that there is something wrong with the health and wellness of this community. Some studies suggest that the average life expectancy of gay men in Canada is at least 20 years less than that of the general population. What is clear in the various studies is that gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people have higher incidences of smoking, suicide, depression, drug use and HIV infection.

Now, I will agree with East of Eden that one can find legitimate data that show that the gay population, or at least some segments of that population, suffer from certain health conditions in larger proportion than the population at large.


What I don't buy is the 20-year reduction in life expectancy figure as, as far as I can tell, that is based on one single study from one Canadian city.


I also reject the notion that these health problems indicate some kind of inherent deficiency in being gay. Many of these problems are explainable by the prevalent societal pressure and discrimination against gays. This would include the high suicide and depression rates. In fact, some of these same problems occur in minority groups, including interracial groups.

Native Americans, for example, have a higher suicide rate than the population at large.


http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/pub-res/natam.htm

Would East of Eden say we should not allow Native Americans to marry based on having a suicide rate 1.5 times higher than the average, and double the homicide rate?


In fact, racial discrimination is one of the factors contributing to the high suicide rate.

http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/pub-res/natam.htm

They found that the risk factors correlated with suicidal behavior that were unique to reservation youth were depression, a family history of drug abuse, alcohol abuse (in the youth), an arrest history, and racial discrimination.

So in sum, to the extent that we have some "negative statistics" about gays, at least a good portion of the reason for those stats is the long-standing and pervasive discrimination and denigration of gays. THis is corraborated by similar statistics for other historically disadvantaged groups like Blacks and Native Americans.








To close, I again challenge East of Eden to address how any of these statistics are relevant to gay marriage or any other civil rights issue related to homosexuality.

[micatala]

By your reasoning if a Christian ever committed suicide it would be the fault of those who regularly dump on Christianity on this forum.

Your logic is flawed.


There is a difference between occasional negative comments about a group on the part of a few individuals, and a society-wide pattern of long-standing and pervasive denigration and discrimination.

THere is no long-standing and pervasive pattern of denigration and discrimination against Christians.

[Darias]

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.

I take it you are referring to the Old Testament on this issue.

Well, if so, how do you explain the following admission from yourself:

I'm not saying the OT is pertinent only to Judaism, I'm saying the OT ceremonial, dietary, and disciplinary laws were pertinent only to the OT theocracy of Israel, and Judaism today, for those that choose to follow them. Really, this has been a settled issue in Christianity for 2,000 years. See Galatians.

If the OT isn't relevant any more...where do you base god's 'hatred' for homosexuals (or drunkards for that matter)?

God hates sin, not people. The prohibitions against homosexual activity, and other sexual immorality were restated in the NT, the OT Jewish ceremonial and dietary laws were not. Again, see Galatians.

I am not going to back up your argument for you. Show your case.

I've not quite sure what your question is, but if it is the Old vs. New Covenant for the umpteenth time, here is a summary:

http://www.nlbchapel.org/covenant.htm

First the only "way out" that the Bible specifically offers gays is... death by stoning.


As for the rest of this discussion...


If you are basing your position on gays solely upon the New Testament (Namely what Paul says regarding this issue) because the Old Covenant no longer applies, I have a few questions for you.

Paul also forbids women from preaching/leading churches, and from actually speaking or talking in churches. He also forbids women from not wearing a covering, and if they don't they must shave their heads/cut their hair short (a shameful thing back then).

And in regards to slavery, he doesn't condemn it, rather he tries to tell the slaves to be obedient and the masters to be kind.

And yet on these two points most Christians I ask claim that "oh that was just the culture back then"

However when the issue of homosexuality comes up, they quote Paul as if God is speaking Himself.



This is an obvious double standard. Not only is it a great example of how some Christians cherry-pick, but it also makes a lot of sense, in that:

Fundamentalists read what they want to in regards to this issue. Things that make them uncomfortable -- like Paul's views towards women and slavery -- are just inconvenient truths. But when Paul condemns homosexuality, everyone just gets an urge to shout "Amen!"

That's why Christians say they would be disowning the Lord if they voted for equal rights. Women preachers, women who speak in church, women who dress nicely in church, and the end of slavery are all cultural norms. The logic goes as follows "Surely God meant something else, or maybe it was just Paul talking... or just the culture.. ."

Christians today don't vote for slavery and the repression of women. But there are Christians back in the day who did just that.

This is because culture heavily influences how one interprets the Bible. If you are born in the Bible-belt, you will read the Bible very differently than say, someone who went to Seminary in New York.

Your average Christian from the early 20th century would look a lot different than one from the 21st.

This is because free societies moderate the culture over time, making culture more fair and respectful throughout the years. The more liberal the culture, the more liberal the Biblical interpretation. The more conservative the culture, the more conservative the interpretation.

We can see this play out in other religions as well. Say in Afghanistan versus Egypt. One culture cuts noses off of women for not covering entire body properly, the other culture doesn't even require head coverings.



The fact is, the Bible, if followed literally and strictly, (including the Old Testament) produces, not a wonderful 1000 year utopia, but something similar to Medieval Europe.

The same can be said in other religions.


I would personally be happy to see the day when most Christians don't think like Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson -- maybe one day I will... if our culture becomes more open and tolerant.

[East of Eden]

By your reasoning if a Christian ever committed suicide it would be the fault of those who regularly dump on Christianity on this forum.

Your logic is flawed.


There is a difference between occasional negative comments about a group on the part of a few individuals, and a society-wide pattern of long-standing and pervasive denigration and discrimination.

THere is no long-standing and pervasive pattern of denigration and discrimination against Christians.

The former Ms. California would disagree with you. About the most counter-cultural thing you can be is a serious, orthodox Christian.