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]

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.?

I'm not arguing against gay marriage due to the health risks, but because it doesn't qualify as marriage, i.e., not one man and one woman.

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?

Yes, and according to an article in the Boston Globe, gay men are 44 times more likely to get AIDS. Is that just a coincidence?

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/201 ... blame.html

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.

If the Globe is correct that gay men are much more likely to get AIDS (not to mention many other diseases they did not mention), it seems reasonable it would shorten life by 20 years.

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.

Nonsense, as I have earlier pointed out, the same pathologies exist in extremely gay-friendly Netherlands.

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?[/quote]

I have no problem with Native American heterosexual marriage.

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.

No need to shout, but you have a straw man going on here. The unhealthiness of the gay lifestyle is a separate issue, I only discuss it as it is repeatedly challenged by those forum members blinded by political correctness.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 310:

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

I challenge you to show you speak truth regarding:

God offers folks anything.

[East of Eden]

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

Nonsense. Here is Paul speaking of former homosexuals (among others):

And such were some of you, but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God (1 Corinthians 6:11).

It is always possible to do the will of God.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 331:

It is always possible to do the will of God.

If only we could find someone who can show they actually know what this will is.

All we get are folks who's will just happens to agree with "God".

[JohnPaul]

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

Your post reminded me of some song lines I remember hearing as a child from a phonograph record produced by the KKK in the 1920s. My father was not a member, but the KKK was a social organization in our neighborhood and my father bought the record with others at an auction.

Oh, we're going to load those boats
From the bottom to the top
With the Chinks and the Japs and the Hunkies
And a race we call the Wop.
Then we're going to push 'em out,
We don't care where they stop,
There'll be a hot time in your old town that night!

Here is another Klan song, from the flip side of the record:

Oh, Klansman keep
That cross a'burning,
Let it shine
Across the way.
There may be some
Poor lonesome stranger
It will guide
Along the way.

I don't know why these songs have stuck in my mind for more than 70 years, but I can still hear them clearly in my mind.

John

[Jester]

Moderator Comment

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

but somehow I don't really think objectivity is your real goal anyway.

These are personal remarks. Be sure to debate the topic without making them.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster.

[SailingCyclops]

I'm against all abuse against persons with same-sex feelings ...

I'll expound more on your post later. For now, I simply want to deal with one critical issue: If indeed you are really "against all abuse against persons with same-sex feelings", then why do you condone and exacerbate governmental abuse against gay people by not permitting them to legally enjoy the same human rights which you enjoy?

Is that not abuse? Isn't it abuse to deny a sub-class of our population the same tax relief, visitation rights, spousal health care coverage, inheritance rights, life-insurance benefits, adoption rights ....... that you yourself enjoy?

These are secular/political/economic/human rights issues, not religious ones. How can you deny that unequal treatment under the law is not an abuse? Is it not discrimination? Is it not inequality? Does our constitution condone special treatment for a particular religious class at the exclusion of others?

I fully understand your point of view and perspective. I believe you have a perfect right to believe as you do, and live YOUR life as you see fit. What I find abhorrent and dangerous (for you mainly) is your strident attempts to politically prevent those who do not believe as you do, to conform to YOUR beliefs before they are treated as equals under secular law.

Inequality and bigotry are fine in your church and your home because that's your religion. It is not fine however in the public/government sphere, where people of many faiths and beliefs live, not if we call and define ourselves as a democratic republic, and not as a theocracy. In the political/legal arena, we must maintain unbiased-equality, otherwise we are all in jeopardy.

This is beneficial and critical to you. If someday, Christianity is perceived by the majority, as being a corrupting influence on society (IMHO this will happen one day because it's true), there may very well be atheists wanting to outlaw your practices, preachings, and teachings, and wanting to shut-down your churches as subversive anti-social bigoted institutions. They may even want to prevent Christians from marrying, and from receiving financial and tax benefits associated with marriage.

Can't you see, that non-discrimination and equal-rights laws and policies may very well be the only refuge you have some day? Can't you see that separation of church and state benefits both the church and the state? This secular political stance helps you as much as it helps the gay community. Why would you fight against your very own long-term interests? If you deny equality to some today, you may lose equality yourself tomorrow.

Bob

[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.

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

Your example, as an exception and a bad one at that, only serves to prove my point.

First, Miss California was part of a very special situation, being part of a beauty pageant.

Secondly, she is only one individual.

Thus, this is not pervasive long-standing discrimination by any stretch of the imagination.

Now, I am not agreeing with the actions taken based on her answer, but your comparison is like equating Apartheid South Africa with a guy who lost his media job because he said something on the air the boss didn't like.

[micatala]

I'm not arguing against gay marriage due to the health risks, but because it doesn't qualify as marriage, i.e., not one man and one woman.

If East of Eden is forgoing any argument against gay marriage on the basis of suicide rates, promiscuity rates, disease rates, etc., then I am certainly willing to lay aside further discussion on those topics.


However, I fail to see how the rationale offered here is anything other than a completely insubstantial semantic argument, with an implication of argument from tradition thrown in.


This argument is a bit like saying people should not be allowed to use Skype and refer to their communication as a "call" because "call" refers to telephones and not the internet.


If East of Eden wants to believe that "traditionally" marriage has been understood as a relationship between men and women (either one of each or plurally since that has also been traditional) that is fine.

How is the traditional use of this word a legally justified rationale for banning gay marriage?


Can East of Eden provide any legitimate, secular purpose or purposes for banning gay marriage?

[JohnPaul]

Moderator Comment

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

but somehow I don't really think objectivity is your real goal anyway.

These are personal remarks. Be sure to debate the topic without making them.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster.

Just a clarifying question for the moderator --

I think it is debatable whether Meow Mix's question about hateful people "like you" qualifies as a "personal attack" and not simply a legitimate clarifying debate question in a thread such as this.

Many of the opinions expressed by Christians in this forum about gays can certainly, by definition, be called hateful attacks against gays, and by extension, the persons expressing those opinions as hateful people, at least in this context. The word "hateful" is certainly a relevant adjective in a discussion such as this. By using the words "like you," Meow Mix was only clarifying the exact kind of "hateful people" she was asking about.

John