The Gay agenda

lastcallhall · Post by **lastcallhall** » Tue May 24, 2011 7:46 pm

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?

SailingCyclops · Post by **SailingCyclops** » Fri Jun 10, 2011 12:31 pm

East of Eden wrote: Stop making things up. As kooky as they are, the 60-member Westboro folks haven't hurt a fly.

Who's making things up?

WPC has at least 100 members. Their influence however extends [strike]nation[/strike]world-wide. See the articles above referencing C-Street and Uganda.

They haven't hurt a fly? Intruding on fallen soldier's funerals and mocking the dead, doesn't hurt the beavered? Demonstrating at disaster sites doesn't hurt those who have just lost everything? WPC celebrating the deaths of the Joplin, Missouri tornado victims doesn't "hurt a fly"? Only a "Christian" could make such a statement with a straight face, and actually believe it.

It takes a hardened heart to make such a "compassionate statement". Oh wait; they never hurt flies, they only hurt people, is that what you are saying?

This fanatical position of yours and others, equating gay people with evil-doers, undeserving of basic human rights and equality, when spread about, has led to murder and suicide, has led to cruel bullying of young people which in turn has led to their untimely deaths. But hey, they aren't flies either right? They're only queers.

Bob

Lux · Post by **Lux** » Fri Jun 10, 2011 1:39 pm

Moderator Comment

Strider324 wrote:Translation - "I am embarrassed that there are Christians who act in accordance with the Bible and honor God by actually acting on His decree that Fags should be killed, so I am desperately distancing myself from THESE Christians because they...well....they just aren't REAL Christians. And for the record, ANY examples you produce of Christians being hateful and ignorant will be summarily dismissed under this same....um... 'logic' (cough, sputter)."

This entire post is uncivil, personal and unnecessary. Focus on the subject only and make your points without making fun of other posters - there is no need to use this tone.

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.

East of Eden · Post by **East of Eden** » Fri Jun 10, 2011 1:44 pm

SailingCyclops wrote: Who'se making things up?

WPC has at least 100 members. Their influence however extends [strike]nation[/strike]world-wide. See the articles above referencing C-Street and Uganda.

Wikipedia says 71, whatever, they're insignificant and about as representative of Christians as Stalin of atheists.

They haven't hurt a fly?

Yes, they haven't physically hurt anyone. We have to put up with their goofy free speech, just as we do yours.

micatala · Post by **micatala** » Fri Jun 10, 2011 2:00 pm

I have to ask again, how are any of these theological issues about what is sinful and what God has or will do about it, or what we who are Christians should do about it relevant to what the law of the land should be?

Under the First Amendment, what is sinful should be irrelevant with respect to the law unless there is also a compelling secular reason to make that sin illegal.

We have such compelling secular reasons for the sins of murder and stealing.

Where is the compelling secular reason for banning gay marriage or discriminating against gays in other ways?

Keep in mind that under the concept of equal protection, as embodied in the 14th amendment, any such rationale that are applied to gays should also be applied to everyone else equally.

lastcallhall · Post by **lastcallhall** » Fri Jun 10, 2011 2:31 pm

Where is the compelling secular reason for banning gay marriage or discriminating against gays in other ways?

If any law was put up for vote I will vote the Bible. The secular argument for me is the system can't handle the hit to social security because the you can't tell anyone in any group with any number of people that they can't get married. If you throw out the Bible then are you ready for any form of marriage that someone can dream up?

Lux · Post by **Lux** » Fri Jun 10, 2011 2:44 pm

lastcallhall wrote:If any law was put up for vote I will vote the Bible. The secular argument for me is the system can't handle the hit to social security because the you can't tell anyone in any group with any number of people that they can't get married. If you throw out the Bible then are you ready for any form of marriage that someone can dream up?

This is known as the Slippery Slope argument, and it is a logical fallacy that is often used to argue against gay marriage. The idea is that if we allow marriage for people of the same sex, then we have to allow people to marry their cows or their babies, when it is not necessarily so.

What makes you think that we will have to legalize other forms of marriage as a direct result of gay marriage? Personally, I do not think marriage between two consenting adults is even remotely comparable to marriages including one or more beings that are not consenting adults.

lastcallhall · Post by **lastcallhall** » Fri Jun 10, 2011 3:20 pm

This is known as the Slippery Slope argument, and it is a logical fallacy that is often used to argue against gay marriage. The idea is that if we allow marriage for people of the same sex, then we have to allow people to marry their cows or their babies, when it is not necessarily so.

What makes you think that we will have to legalize other forms of marriage as a direct result of gay marriage? Personally, I do not think marriage between two consenting adults is even remotely comparable to marriages including one or more beings that are not consenting adults.

First I don't think this is a slippery slope because people like in the New Mexico case have been sued for trying to stick to thier religious views. I see more to come
On this thread it has been said many times that I hate, oppress, and want to deny rights to gay people and that because the Bible calls it sin that I still have no business using it to form my opinion. I have been told that even if the vast majority of people are against gay marriage that it still does not make it right. If we go with that how can you possibly deny ANYONE any form of "marriage"? To me this is very hypocritical if you take the stand that gay marriage should be allowed. How can you tell one "oppressed" group they should not be but another smaller minority they are not worthy of being helped? I stand by the Bible to justify my vote how do you justify yours?

SailingCyclops · Post by **SailingCyclops** » Fri Jun 10, 2011 3:28 pm

East of Eden wrote: Yes, they haven't physically hurt anyone. We have to put up with their goofy free speech, just as we do yours.

Emotional and psychological pain hurts just as bad as physical pain. Have you never lost a loved one, or a dear friend?

Free speech? Well, we as a sane society do allow free speech; within certain limits. It is not legal to scream fire in a crowded theater, nor is hate speech legal.

What seems to be the case in this particular situation, is that because the hate speech is cloaked in religion, it is given a pass, where otherwise it would be slammed by the justice department.

The same double-standard is being applied when it comes to mental health/illness IMHO. A person sitting in a public place, and having a conversation with his imaginary friend sitting next to him, would be hauled off to a hospital for psychiatric observation. That is of course, unless the entity he is talking to is god. This idea that religiosity somehow trumps every other social/behavioral restriction has insidiously crept into our legal system. If what WPC is doing was being done by the KKK, there would be much public and legal outcry. But, because it is being done in a religious context, they are given a pass, and not slammed for inciting violence.

To give you an idea as to just how far-out, dangerous, and rabid, this incendiary, homophobic, religious rhetoric has gone, consider that the KKK actually attacked WBC for their activities.

When the KKK is protesting against your position, you had better start re-evaluating where you stand.

Bob

lastcallhall · Post by **lastcallhall** » Fri Jun 10, 2011 4:02 pm

When the KKK is protesting against your position, you had better start re-evaluating where you stand.

Bob

Who is backing up what WBC does? I was in the military and if they showed up to a funeral that I was at I would have a hard time not knocking someone out. That said in America for good or bad they can say anything they wish BUT they do not represent 99% (total guess for a percentage) of christians.

McCulloch · Post by **McCulloch** » Fri Jun 10, 2011 4:20 pm

lastcallhall wrote: If any law was put up for vote I will vote the Bible.

Thank you for that admission. You essentially admit that you disapprove of the principle of the separation of church and state. You have such confidence in the truth of your religion that you seek to impose its principles on those who do not share your faith. Can you tell me, other than degree, how this is different from the Taliban?

lastcallhall wrote: The secular argument for me is the system can't handle the hit to social security because the you can't tell anyone in any group with any number of people that they can't get married.

This is your criterion for restricting humans rights? It might cost too much? What a wonderful way to exemplify the teachings of Jesus!

lastcallhall wrote: If you throw out the Bible then are you ready for any form of marriage that someone can dream up?

If you throw out the Bible then are you ready for any form of government that someone can dream up? After all, representative democracy is not sanctioned in the Bible, but the divine right of kings is. Taxation without representation is nowhere condemned in the Bible, but it does say render unto Caesar. All of the Bible believing Christians were on the side of the Loyalists in 1776, right? Our countries threw out the Bible as a source of public policy centuries ago.