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]

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

Please review the Rules.

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."

Thanks for defending me John, but I think Jester is right. Sorry for the bad conduct, Jester.

East of Eden, please accept my apology. I disagree with your outlook on these issues, but I shouldn't have violated the rules I agreed to when signing up for the forum.

[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.

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

I understand the idea of the covenant but I want you to state explicitly the sections of the NT where god is apparently against homosexuality. Also, how god defines homosexuality as 'sin'.

[SailingCyclops]

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.

That's because we are essentially debating the very same, only decades later.

This debate is about equal rights for gay Americans. The KKK debate was about equal rights for African Americans. You can pretty much replace gay with black here, and have the debate we had pre 1964.

The antagonists are the same. The issues are nearly the same..

What horrors does this image evoke?
[center]

[/center]
If you said the KKK you would be wrong, but the connection is unmistakable, as would be an image of a burning cross.

That image shows Christian believers celebrating the Holy Week of Easter

A picture is worth a thousand words. Now do you know why this discussion brought back memories of a KKK song? This is simply a repeat of old history, and an old debate, only one of the actors has changed.

Bob

[lastcallhall]

I understand the idea of the covenant but I want you to state explicitly the sections of the NT where god is apparently against homosexuality. Also, how god defines homosexuality as 'sin'.

Romans 1:26-31
New King James Version (NKJV)

26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, 30 backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful;

Romans defines the homosexuals qualify for the sexually immoral and then revelation tells us what happens to the sexually immoral.

Revelation 21:8
New King James Version (NKJV)

8 But the cowardly, unbelieving,[a] abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.

Please note that liars are also included in this group that is going to hell. I am a liar. I repent and have asked Jesus to forgive me. I make this point to say again that I do not see homosexuals as worse than ANYONE but I will call it what the Bible says, sin.

[lastcallhall]

A picture is worth a thousand words. Now do you know why this discussion brought back memories of a KKK song? This is simply a repeat of old history, and an old debate, only one of the actors has changed.

What church wants to lynch gays? What church has people vandalize gays homes? Who wants to kill anyone? You bring up blacks and the KKK but the comparison is just wrong. I like most gay people and like Meow Mix most are very nice and warm people, if I saw someone trying to physically harm someone because they were gay I would do everything I could to protect that person. You just don't seem to understand I am against gay marriage because I believe God calls it sin. They can live anyway they like but don't ask me to vote for a law that is against my core belief.

[Lux]

Moderator Comment

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

If you have questions, comments or objections regarding moderator action, please PM any member of the moderating team for clarification to avoid derailing threads.


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]

A picture is worth a thousand words. Now do you know why this discussion brought back memories of a KKK song? This is simply a repeat of old history, and an old debate, only one of the actors has changed.

What church wants to lynch gays? What church has people vandalize gays homes? Who wants to kill anyone?

Here ya go! The westboro baptist church.
Baptists are Christians right?

Bob

[SailingCyclops]

... As far as stoning gays, you must be thinking of Islam.

No, I was thinking of the bible:

Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them"

And the method of capital punishment in the Old Testament was?????

Bob

[lastcallhall]

Baptists are Christians right?

Bob

Westboro are not Baptist or christinas, they do not represent any christian I know or any church or pastor I have ever heard. They are sick people.

[micatala]

I understand the idea of the covenant but I want you to state explicitly the sections of the NT where god is apparently against homosexuality. Also, how god defines homosexuality as 'sin'.

Romans 1:26-31
New King James Version (NKJV)

26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, 30 backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful;

Romans defines the homosexuals qualify for the sexually immoral and then revelation tells us what happens to the sexually immoral.

Revelation 21:8
New King James Version (NKJV)

8 But the cowardly, unbelieving,[a] abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.

Please note that liars are also included in this group that is going to hell. I am a liar. I repent and have asked Jesus to forgive me. I make this point to say again that I do not see homosexuals as worse than ANYONE but I will call it what the Bible says, sin.

I will give my own "theological opinons," for what they are worth, but again, I have to point out we do not determine what rights people enjoy by using the Bible. In the U.S., we have freedom of religion. Even if you are correct that the Bible considers homosexuality or homosexual sex sinful, that is irrelevant to the rights gays are afforded under the constitution.



Now, to this passage in Romans, let's consider the context.


Who is the "them" that is referred to in the first verse of the passage you quote above.

For this reason God gave them up to vile passions.

Paul specifies in the previous verses.

Romans 1
New American Standard Bible (NASB)


Romans 1
The Gospel Exalted
1 Paul, a bond-servant of Christ Jesus, [a](A)called as an apostle, (B)set apart for (C)the gospel of God, 2 which He (D)promised beforehand through His (E)prophets in the holy Scriptures, 3 concerning His Son, who was born (F)of a descendant of David (G)according to the flesh, 4 who was declared (H)the Son of God with power [c]by the resurrection from the dead, according to the [d]Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord, 5 through whom we have received grace and (I)apostleship [e]to bring about the (J)obedience of faith among (K)all the Gentiles for His names sake, 6 among whom you also are the (L)called of Jesus Christ;
7 to all who are (M)beloved of God in Rome, called as [f](N)saints: (O)Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

8 First, (P)I thank my God through Jesus Christ [g]for you all, because (Q)your faith is being proclaimed throughout the whole world. 9 For (R)God, whom I (S)serve in my spirit in the preaching of the gospel of His Son, is my witness as to how unceasingly (T)I make mention of you, 10 always in my prayers making request, if perhaps now at last by (U)the will of God I may succeed in coming to you. 11 For (V)I long to see you so that I may impart some spiritual gift to you, that you may be [h]established; 12 that is, that I may be encouraged together with you while among you, each of us by the others faith, both yours and mine. 13 (W)I do not want you to be unaware, (X)brethren, that often I (Y)have planned to come to you (and have been prevented so far) so that I may obtain some (Z)fruit among you also, even as among the rest of the Gentiles. 14 (AA)I am under obligation both to Greeks and to (AB)barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish. 15 So, for my part, I am eager to (AC)preach the gospel to you also who are in Rome.

16 For I am not (AD)ashamed of the gospel, for (AE)it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the (AF)Jew first and also to (AG)the Greek. 17 For in it (AH)the righteousness of God is revealed [j]from faith to faith; as it is written, [k](AI)BUT THE RIGHTEOUS man SHALL LIVE BY FAITH.

Unbelief and Its Consequences
18 For (AJ)the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who (AK)suppress the truth [l]in unrighteousness, 19 because (AL)that which is known about God is evident [m]within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For (AM)since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, (AN)being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not [n]honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became (AO)futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 (AP)Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and (AQ)exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and [o]crawling creatures. 24 Therefore (AR)God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be (AS)dishonored among them. 25 For they exchanged the truth of God for [p]a (AT)lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, (AU)who is blessed forever. Amen.

Note the bolded sections. Paul has a specific group of people in mind, and this group is characterized by being engaged in a rather specific kind of idolatry. This type of idolatry was common in Paul's day, especially in Rome, and often involved sexual practices.



Thus, it is a huge, huge assumption, and in fact counter to the plain meaning of the text, to apply this to all people of a homosexual orientation, or even all people engaged in gay sex, and especially to people today.


Secondly, as has been pointed out, Paul had a lot of views that we consider archaic today as Christians and give no second thought to ignoring.


Thirdly, consider Acts CH. 15, where the Apostles and early church leaders, and specifically James the brother of Jesus, felt fully justified in taking authority unto themselves to exempt all Gentile believers from nearly all of the Law of Moses.


If they were free to do that, why are we who are Christians today not free, either as a whole or in smaller subgroups, to decide the teachings that seem to allude to gays are archaic and not relevant, just as James decided the Law of Moses was archaic and not relevant to Gentiles?



Now, do I expect my brief case here to be compelling to those of differing views. However, this case clearly has enough merit to justify differing with those who do still consider homosexuals or at least homosexual sex in all cases an abomination.



And to reiterate, this is a theological debate which has its proper venue within Christianity. Such debates, unless one can come up with a legitimate non-religious rationale for the conclusions on one side or the other, should be considered irrelevant under the law given the First Amendment.