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?

[Darias]

The reason why there is a term known as homophobia is because a heck of a lot of people do hate gay people, and unfortunately a lot of people doing the hating are Christians.

I know many christians but none that hate gay people, do you have any proof of this? I know non religious people that seem to hate gay people and use slurs all of the time. I try not to lump all non christians together and I would hope you would do the same.

This is why I didn't say most, or all. I am a Christian. It would be wrong for me to stereotype all Christians and even all Fundamentalists, which is why I don't. It would also be irresponsible of me to falsely claim that only some or a tiny minority of Christians hate homosexuals because that would be a gross falsehood. WBC members excluded...

And I can say from experience, from friends and my church that disdain and disgust towards gays is painfully evident. I also see this attitude in famous pastors like Falwell, and Lively.

[center][youtube][/youtube][/center]

If you notice after he scares his Ugandan Christian audience with all sorts of slanderous lies and falsehoods about gay people, he then claims that he isn't hateful and that he's "Christian." I mean he called gays pedophiles and murderers and ridiculously claims that Nazi Germany was primarily a gay movement -- it's like he's totally oblivious to his own hatred and ignorance...

And as I have mentioned before, this is the man who is directly cited by proponents of the Ugandan bill which at one point called for the hanging of homosexuals, and currently only calls for their imprisonment and requires everyone who knows a homosexual to report them to the police. This is because they believe the Gay agenda is a sinful western import that threatens families and children. Gee, I wonder where they got such ideas from? hmmmm, that's a tough one.... Probably from Christian homophobia and hatred -- which is sometimes confused as "love."

Of course Lively's sorry now that he has heard the news... he "can't believe" he had a hand in what has happened -- well that's what happens when you say hateful ignorant untrue things -- usually violence and injustice results from this. At least he can take comfort in knowing that he wasn't the only evangelical who's words inspired this legislative hatred.

According to Warren Throckmorton, an evangelical psychology professor once associated with the ex-gay movement, when Ugandas anti-gay activists speak about homosexuality, they cite materials by Scott Lively and Paul Cameron, two of the fiercest American opponents of the so-called homosexual agenda.
_____
SOURCE

If they don't literally sit around all day with anger in their hearts, then in the least they say hurtful things (not, homosexuality is a sin, but "pray the gay away or burn"); and if nothing, they are pretty oblivious to the plight of LGBT persons and instead far too focused on "Christian persecution" in the United States (which is relatively non-existent in comparison to other countries.)

You are wrong, the middle east actually persecute gays, christians do not set out to harm gays. (If you want to call the nuts at Westboro christians ok, I don't) What christian persecution do you speak of? The fact laws are being passed to sue christians who do not perform gay weddings? Who goes to gay bars and try to stop anyone from doing anything? The agenda here is to cram this down christian America's throat like it or not. The only sin secular humanism seems to have or liberals in general is the sin of "intolerance". We are called hateful for sticking up for God's word and that is ok, we will keep standing by his word no matter how low society falls into sin.

1. I, as a Christian, personally find it extremely insulting to erroneously claim that Christians are being persecuted in America, when a majority of Americans identify with Christianity, and when our freedoms are not taken away from us because of our faith. Whereas, in other countries, this is not the case. Christians are killed, terrorized, imprisoned, etc. I'm offended that you would even suggest Christians are suffering here.

2. What laws sir? What laws? I'd ask you to name one but I won't because there aren't. You're making false claims in order to justify your position, and I'd rather you just stick with your position, rather than invent anti-Christian laws.

There are no laws in these United States which are requiring churches to ordain, or consent to preaching in favor of homosexuality; they do not have to marry homosexual couples, and they do not have to welcome them into their doors. Churches are not businesses and are not public services, and are granted freedom of speech even unto the extreme (such as WBC).

3. As for WBC, I don't consider them as honest representatives of the Christian faith, - but even they are non-violent. They do not teach anyone to harm. If you are defining hatred solely by the definition of harm and imprisonment then, of course many Christian Americans would not be in favor of that... but when I talk about hatred, that's not what I'm talking about.

Hatred is essentially bigotry, which is the refusal to acknowledge realities. Examples of Christian intolerance for gays include terms and slogans as well. Gay families don't exist; instead they are called "gay partnerships." Huckabee said gay people should stay away from children and just adopt kittens -- how disgusting! Yeah, real Christlike there huck...

people like Andrew Shirvell who stalk gay students and label them as gay nazis for the gay agenda...

And at the end of the day, gay people who wish to have relationships cannot be legally recognized unless they live in certain states, and if they venture out from those states their marriages or civil unions aren't recognized and until recently, they wouldn't be able to see their husbands or wives (not "lifepartners") if one of them was hospitalized in a state that didn't recognize their marriage -- as the law forbid anyone who isn't next of kin from visiting.

homophobia in this country has led to the suicides of countless self-described gay children.

But I suppose if you watch FOX News all day, then you put these realities far out of sight and out of mind...

So it's not just that gays can't get married but the fact that they aren't tolerated in the work place -- and until recently were simply fired for being gay (it wasn't just don't ask don't tell, it was DADT + don't send emails to loved ones or your email account will be hacked and you will be escorted off of your base and fired -- not because of your conduct but because you're a queer. This was the case of Mike Almy.

Homophobia is a horrible reality in America, whether its from non-Christians or Christians -- it's bad... and just as prevalent and awful as racism.

You're trying to tell me that you're firm on your position because you equate such a position with God's will, no if's and's or but's.

I believe my position is God's position and nobody has shown me otherwise. If I have found God's opinion why would I change it even if society calls me wrong?

You believe that your interpretation of scripture and your doctrines and beliefs are indistinguishable from God's will?

How can anyone attempt to show, argue, debate, or point out flaws in your beliefs and assumptions if you believe without question that your thoughts and beliefs are one with God's? How could anyone show you otherwise if you won't give them the benefit of the doubt - if you won't consider within the realm of all possibilities that your estimation is not 100% correct.

I'm not debating with God; I'm debating with you -- and if your mind is set on "no gay marriage 'cause Jesus said it to me personally" -- then no amount of facts, data, arguments, or stories can ever change your mind or persuade you to think of things in a different light.

I'm trying to explain to you why people who support equal rights, including many Christians both liberal and conservative, see this as closed-minded, at times very hateful depending on the person, and at best ignorant of the reality that such attitudes create unfairness under the law.

And my position is that the ignorance comes from the side that is playing with sin, all sin will damn your soul and I don't want to see anyone damned.

I'm glad you said this because herein lies what I find to be arbitrary voting habits on behalf of anti-gay marriage fundamentalists.

You vote to ban the possibility of homosexuals enjoying your right to legally recognized marriage and all of the 1400 rights afforded with that because you don't want souls to be damned.

Yet you do not vote against religious freedom to ban Judaism, Islam, or Buddhism -- although all are false/incomplete teachings that lead people to be damned. Is not attending the religious services of "false-religions" also a sinful lifestyle?

You do not vote to ban the construction of synagogs and masonic lodges -- even though both are institutions that spead "false religions" and lead many to hell.

So do I or other equal rights supporters buy it when you say that you are voting against gay marriage because you care for the souls of homosexuals?

No we don't sorry... if you really cared about everyone's souls and if you really voted in accordance with the Bible, you wouldn't support the freedom of religion either.

But you do because you've been raised in a culture that is thankful for religious tolerance, cause you know very well that without such tolerance your freedom of religion would be threatened by people who don't like your faith -- people who see your faith as a "Christian agenda" meant to harm our children and destroy families. (obviously I don't believe that characterization, but it's the exact characterization people use on gays all of the time) So that's why you support the freedom of religion but not equal rights for gays, Christians or otherwise.

Yes, it's a double standard. This is why so many supporters of LGBT rights might sometimes assume that there are other motives beyond religious beliefs that come into play. When one cannot logically defend the way they vote scripturally -- or when they pick and choose which scriptural principles to base their vote on -- it's really hard for any of us to believe that hatred or bigotry isn't a factor; it really is.

If it's not hatred, then it's another motive, most likely a cultural motive or a personal disgust. Of course no one will ever admit this, because they prefer to hide behind Leviticus and claim that they are only doing God's will.

Now, some points:

1. Your doctrines and conservative reading and view that the Bible is infallible, inerrant, and directly from God does not = The Bible. If someone dismisses or disagrees with your perspective and interpretation for whatever reason (out of conviction, logic or whathaveyou), it does not mean that they are throwing the Bible in the trashcan.

Fair enough, I feel the literal translation is the only way to read the Bible but I understand others don't feel that way.

I am one of these Christians who contend that the Bible isn't the perfect word of God. This is because there are so many God ordained genocides and hideous evils and factual errors about everything from biology to astronomy. And I don't believe that God is a liar. I believe that God is love, and almost everything Jesus did, and all the descriptions of God's nature in the New testament contradict everything said about God or attributed to God in the Old Testament. So sure, I certainly believe that there is human influence there -- and now to the point where I believe that it is entirely a human document. Most of my fellow Christians will not go that far, but I do because of what I know about the scriptures. But you don't have to believe that the Bible is the work of man to admit that there is some pretty nasty stuff in the Bible and that it's attributed to God -- if you are adamant about believing that every dot and tittle is God breathed, then you should at least be aware of those passages, and not just pretend like they aren't there are are perfectly justified and okay because God is omnipotent.

And you don't even have to believe that Biblical inerrancy is false to not read the bible literally. Most of Jesus' parables weren't actual factual accounts. They were parables. There is lots of metaphoric stuff in the Bible and if you read it all literally then you're bound to miss deeper things -- even fundamentalists admit that.

2. Gays do not want to force Christians to marry them; Gays do not seek to ban straight marriage, nor do they seek to destroy the family. The best way to save straight marriage is to teach children not to rush into relationships, which is probably why half of Christian marriages end in divorce.

I think that is wrong, why did the couple sue the photographers? To prove a point and stop others from even thinking about saying no to doing a gay wedding. I see this as the first step to many laws passed to stop the literal preaching of the gospel. I have found that universalists seem to accept any religion or message as long as it is not the intolerant close minded view of the conservative christian and I see gay marriage as the first step.

The photographers were a business. They offered services to everyone but gays -- even if it wasn't a Christian wedding. When a gay couple asked in an email if they would come take pictures, they refused -- and when the gay couple asked why, they said that it was because they were gay.

Some state laws prohibit business from discrimination based on race, gender, religion, AND sexual orientation.

The business should have been sued because it was discriminating plain and simple. No one buys the argument that taking pictures at the gay wedding was against their beliefs when they supported non-Christian marriages by taking pictures for non Christian clients. There's a double standard and it all boils down to gay people - hence the discrimination.

But whether or not you agree with how that court case was settled -- the fact is churches will never be subject to similar cases. This is because churches are not businesses and churches can say whatever they want. Take Rev. Wright for example, or Fred Phelps, or anyone -- they can say whatever they want and churches can preach whatever they want; churches all across America have the authority to ban women and gays from being pastors and no one can do anything about it because of freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

If you are a business and you offer services to the public, then you have to render unto caesar what is caesar's. This means that you can't refuse Homosexuals or African Americans or whatever -- imagine if McDonalds or WalMart did that? "No you and your husband can't shop here today because your marriage is against our Christian beliefs" Or if Pizza Hut did that, "No we can't send you your order sir because your marriage offends our Christian beliefs."

I mean, that's different because it's a public service... it's not a "church service."

To use 1 case, 1 case, that happened between a business and gay clients as a bridge to the conclusion that "The day marriage is legalized for gays is the day churches will be shut down by the government, pastors arrested, and Christians sued for preaching about homosexuality in church!" that's not just a slippery slope fallacy, that's a slip-n-slide off a cliff.

It is simply a nonsensical, un-evidenced, fear-based claim. It holds no water, and no one buys it.

Christian churches will not have to marry gay people unless they so choose, depending what type of Christian church it is of course.

I think that is wrong, why could they not sue a church like the New Mexico couple got sued? I think lawsuits will come overnight.

As I said above, Businesses are not churches and churches can be as intolerant as they want --- look even WBC won a Supreme Court Case to be able to protest within a certain range of funerals -- if that flies under our laws, then Christians are safe -- even if homophobic sermons are ever classified as hate-speech.

If radical Muslim groups can go out on the streets and praise Osama bin Laden, then pastors can go out on the streets and preach like Lively -- it's called freedom of speech and you can't be successfully sued for that, especially if you are a church.

To say otherwise is an unsubstantiated, homophobic claim, yes homophobic because fear is involved and it is an irrational fear of the gay community.

Marriage is a legal institution; you may believe that it is a divine creation, but the fact is modern marriage evolved from Medieval customs. Before this there was lots of polygamy and stuff goin' around that the Bible never condemned.

Marriage affords 1,400 rights to straight couples that it does not afford to gay people who wish to be recognized as a family, and they could be just as much a family as any straight family can be. The idea that they cannot is not substantiated and is solely based in the priori assumption that gays are sinners, gays have mental disorders, gays are beasts, gay relationships are a lifestyle whereas straight relationships are loving - etc. etc. -- all unsubstantiated bias -- all used in weak arguments meant to shore up fundamentalist dogma.

Gays are sinners like the rest of us, the difference is other sinners don't try to have their lifestyle accepted by everyone while continuing to live in sin. I would not accept any lifestyle that lived in open sin to God.

No one is saying that you have to accept anything. You don't have to accept other religions as being good when you view them as sinful creations of Satan. You don't have to accept the legal choices of sex outside of marriage between consenting adults. You don't have to accept alcoholism, pornography, or gambling.

Yet all are legal within certain restrictions. And Americans can engage in all of those.

Except marriage, which you feel should not be allowed for gays.

So are you saying that gays are exceptional sinners or that their "sin" is worse than others?

No, I don't think you've expressed that view.

Then what? Why can't gays have the same rights as you when it comes to marriage?


Remember by voting for constitutional amendments to define and "protect marriage" the only thing you are doing is banning all same sex unions and marriages -- your rights to say that homosexuals are sinners and that gay marriage is wrong aren't infringed upon. Your right to marry isn't at risk.

The only thing at risk are equal rights for LGBT persons.


So you tell me, who really has the agenda? Well all we want is equal rights... we don't want approval of marriage in churches because we don't care what you guys want to believe, so long as it doesn't keep other people from being able to have the same rights and protections as you.

It's only fair.

Have you ever heard the saying "The devil can use the Bible for his own purposes"?

Yes I have and like you can imagine I believe it is used by the devil against christinas to show us as hateful and bigoted on this issue.

Believe me, Satanic intervention is not required. All you need to demonstrate that a number of Christians are homophobic and are heavily influencing inequality, hatred, and fear for gays in this country and around the world are facts. Videos, quotes, and news pieces on real Christians -- and I believe I have sufficiently cited many examples.

Of course I'm not going to use these realities to demonize all Christians, as that would be hypocritical of me. And the fact is, I don't. But I do acknowledge them. I don't choose to ignore these inconvenient truths. Remember, I consider myself a Christian as well, I cringe whenever WBC members talk because they make me look bad, just as they make you look bad...

The fact is at the end of the day, if a Christian says something that is considered hateful and ignorant, it doesn't matter if they themselves believe that they aren't hateful and are only preaching God's Word, as Lively has done -- guess what? It's still offensive and there's no truth to what he says or what many others say.

There's no deception from Satan involved. Sometimes it is what it is. And to deny that is just being dishonest. And it's not like people don't notice.

Just about every ilk since Christ first came has been justified with Biblical passages, whether it be about geocentrism, burning witches, supporting monarchies, opposing abolition, opposing women's suffrage, opposing inter-racial marriage etc. etc.

The difference is I am not telling anyone they can be with who they want to, I am saying I will not vote to legalize a sinful lifestyle.

I'm not saying you have to vote in favor of allowing federal recognition of marriage for LGBT persons. But that isn't the issue here. The issue is, most of the GOP candidates support a constitutional amendment to the constitution which defines a legal marriage as one between a man and a woman -- simultaneously prohibiting marriage for gays as well as civil unions, even in states which have already recognized it. So not only is that position big government over state's rights, it's also rendering all gay unions and marriages as null and void.

If you can be with someone, and have legal rights, but you vote in favor of banning other people from having those same rights, then you are in the wrong.

There is no bill out there that I know of that proposes an amendment to the constitution defining marriage to be for gays and straights.

If that was the case, then no I wouldn't expect you to vote for it.

But, you need to realize that you aren't defending anything, you aren't voting to protect your rights, you aren't voting for religious freedom, the only thing you vote for when you vote to constitutionally define marriage, is to vote rights away from others -- that's all you are doing. Call it what you will, but just be aware of that fact.

In my opinion, the fundamentalist insistence and border-line obsession with gay marriage is just another mis-use of the Bible -- a mis-use that hurts a lot of people.

Fair enough but what if you are wrong and God is against gay marriage, your message would send many people to hell believing God is for the lifestyle. It goes both ways my friend.

Some points...

1. God is said to be against a lot of things, and many of those said things are legal in the United States, and many of those individuals make the decision to engage in them, and would even if they weren't legal (like drinking during prohibition).

2. If my decision to grant rights to people who choose to marry, even if I didn't agree with their decision, leads other people to hell -- then your decision not to petition the government to ban non-Christian religions sends a lot of people to hell too. Of course it goes both ways. Even though this argument fails to account for the personal will of people, who are at the end of the day responsible for their own actions.

3. Making marriage illegal for a huge subset of the population will not make gays magically turn straight and convert to fundamentalism. It will not "save their souls" even if you believe their behavior damns them, because many will still want to be together even if they cant marry, have kids, tax exemptions, or domestic and divorce protections. Banning gay marriage will no more discourage gay people from demanding their rights and perusing relationships with people they love, than banning religion discourage Christians from meeting and worshiping God. The only thing banning people's rights does is make the banner look hateful and ignorant.

Banning gay marriage will not save anyone's souls. It only creates resentment in the gay community, and turns-off young people like myself - to the message of the church.

God says to preach the truth and that is what I do. I try as much as possible to show I act out of love. I am sorry if it turns anyone off from the church but my main concern is pleasing God.

You have mentioned something like that before, that you have no desire to please men, but only God. But do you know this is exactly the opposite of what Paul believed -- aka what the inerrant word of God says?

23 All things are lawful, but not all things are helpful. All things are lawful, but not all things build up. 24 Let no one seek his own good, but the good of his neighbor. 25 Eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising any question on the ground of conscience. 26 For the earth is the Lords, and the fullness thereof. 27 If one of the unbelievers invites you to dinner and you are disposed to go, eat whatever is set before you without raising any question on the ground of conscience. 28 But if someone says to you, This has been offered in sacrifice, then do not eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for the sake of conscience" 29 I do not mean your conscience, but his. For why should my liberty be determined by someone elses conscience? 30 If I partake with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of that for which I give thanks?

31 So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. 32 Give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God, 33 just as I try to please everyone in everything I do, not seeking my own advantage, but that of many, that they may be saved.
_____
SOURCE

I don't accept any of the arguments presented by any Christian or non-Christian that opposes gay marriage for one reason and for one reason only -- none of them have any merit. They are all fundamentally flawed.

That is your right

It's my right because I'm not denying anything but flawed arguments. If you can present a coherent legitimate argument which people can accept for banning gay marriage, then I would consider it.

But if you cannot, and I believe you cannot, then simply say so. Simply admit that you think gay marriage is a sin and nothing can shake you from that assumption because you are convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that its wrong and should be illegal --

And I will respect you for that even though I will argue the reasons why I disagree.

What I do not respect are sad attempts to use slippery slope fallacies, and hypothesize of what could happen based on nothing. Don't make up things like East of Eden does -- don't attempt to justify something you cannot -- simply admit that you believe God says it, and leave it at that -- and though I might disagree with you thoroughly on what God "says" and your interpretation and reasoning etc, I will respect your opinion and your argument for not attempting to use fearful "persecution" myths -- none of which can be supported or taken seriously.

And like I said, if that doesn't matter to you -- if you are wise in your own estimation of what God's scripture says -- then be my guest and vote as you will.

But remember your rights are not on the chopping block when you pull that lever in the booth -- other people's are.

I really truly understand what my vote does and I would never take it lightly. I will never take the right to vote lightly, period. To many have sacrificed way too much on the alter of freedom to waste a vote.

I truly hope that after this post you really do understand the consequences of what your vote does to people. I'm not trying to make you feel bad, I'm just being honest.

And if your gut tells you to refuse to sympathize with people's plights, to forgo the reason and intellect that God has provided you with, and to ignore the realities of the consequences -- than you go right ahead. And you live with your vote.

But don't expect love and inquiries on how to be saved, when you're the giver of snakes and stones.

I see it just the opposite I bring the good news of salvation and that is love. John 3:16

And so long as you oppose the legal rights of other people, no one will want to listen to you or to other Christians.

In my mind, opponents of gay marriage are like the Christians in Paul's day to told the poor to come and sit at their feet, whilst the rich sit on nice couches. They are like Christians who didn't want the uncircumcised in their midst, who believed that one could not be saved if the uncircumcised lifestyle was allowed in their faith.

Tell me, would you want to listen to a pastor or a Christian who thought it was sinful for you to be able to vote, be married, etc.? Probably not.

I'm just trying to put this into terms you can appreciate. If Christian opposition to gay marriage does any harm, I think it does the most harm in turning away gays from coming to Christ.

If you think otherwise, okay... can you name any gay Christians in your church?

Imma take a wild guess and say no.

[micatala]

You do not have a constitutional right to discriminate against a person when you run a business. Thus, no constitutional right was violated.

The NM couple, as individual citizens, did not have their rights infringed on. They are still free to worship and express their views as they see fit.

I am not religious or a Christian, but the rights of the NM couple to RUN A BUSINESS were certainly infringed on, and as a retired small businessman, I certainly hope this case is not over.




You cannot legally discriminate against a "person," but you certainly can discriminate against a person's BEHAVIOR. Bare feet, no shirt, drunk, rowdy, offensive language, etc., are just a few examples. It is also perfectly legal to limit the scope of your business services in advertising and in personal negotiations.

The couple in NM left themselves open to a malicious lawsuit by being careless in their advertising and in the words used when refusing service. Hopefully, other small business people will take warning about this new source of malicious lawsuits.

I have nothing against gays and usually support them, but this NM case was outrageous and intolerable behavior!

John

It is not that I have no sympathy for the couple.

I also accept you could make a distinction between discriminating against who a person is and how they behave, but as I will argue below, I am not sure that settles the matter.

I also accept if they couple had been cagier they could have avoided the lawsuit and still have avoided shooting the ceremony they didn't want to.


But, except for lastcallhall who I think said he WOULD be OK discriminating against other groups in a similar situation, no one has addressed that letting this couple do what they did opens up other types of discrimination we long ago did away with.


Suppose the NM couple felt it was against their religion to shoot an interracial wedding? Note, this is also a BEHAVIOR in that they are choosing to marry a person of another race. You could say this is not about discriminating against a particular race.

Would this be OK? Can a business say "we will not serve parties that choose to associate in a mixed race group?"


Would it be OK to say "we will not serve meat eaters?"

[lastcallhall]

And I can say from experience, from friends and my church that disdain and disgust towards gays is painfully evident. I also see this attitude in famous pastors like Falwell, and Lively.

There is nothing more to say about Dr. Falwell, I believe he was a wonderful man of God and is with Jesus now. I'm sorry you feel differently.

1. I, as a Christian, personally find it extremely insulting to erroneously claim that Christians are being persecuted in America, when a majority of Americans identify with Christianity, and when our freedoms are not taken away from us because of our faith. Whereas, in other countries, this is not the case. Christians are killed, terrorized, imprisoned, etc. I'm offended that you would even suggest Christians are suffering here.

I said no such thing. You must have a different view of persecution than I do. Our faith is coming under attack from the left and, in my opinion, will become persecution soon.

2. What laws sir? What laws? I'd ask you to name one but I won't because there aren't. You're making false claims in order to justify your position, and I'd rather you just stick with your position, rather than invent anti-Christian laws.

Hate crimes bills are including gays and if gay marriage is legal in the US there church will be under further attack. It is your choice to not believe it but I do. In Canada you can not preach against homosexuality on the air, that is a fact. John Hagee can't preach there and if you think the same thing won't happen here I think you are very much mistaken.

homophobia in this country has led to the suicides of countless self-described gay children.

So it's my fault gay kids kill themselves? If you feel that way I am sorry but I will not be made out to be a killer to silence the truth. It is horrible that people make fun of someone for who they are but for that to be an accomplice to murder is not true.

You believe that your interpretation of scripture and your doctrines and beliefs are indistinguishable from God's will?

No, I am not that vain. I can't possibly know God's entire will but I think he is crystal clear about the homosexual lifestyle.

How can anyone attempt to show, argue, debate, or point out flaws in your beliefs and assumptions if you believe without question that your thoughts and beliefs are one with God's? How could anyone show you otherwise if you won't give them the benefit of the doubt - if you won't consider within the realm of all possibilities that your estimation is not 100% correct.

I'm not debating with God; I'm debating with you -- and if your mind is set on "no gay marriage 'cause Jesus said it to me personally" -- then no amount of facts, data, arguments, or stories can ever change your mind or persuade you to think of things in a different light.

I am not always right, nor do I claim to be but show me a Bible verse that accepts the homosexual lifestyle. Just one. Please don't just say Jesus loves everyone because yes I know he does, he loves the homosexual as much as he ever loved me. I get that but he does not tolerate sin and you are using your own views to paint your picture please use a Bible verse to change mine.

Yet you do not vote against religious freedom to ban Judaism, Islam, or Buddhism -- although all are false/incomplete teachings that lead people to be damned. Is not attending the religious services of "false-religions" also a sinful lifestyle?

First they are not trying to pass any laws to change society and we try to evangelize the other religions. What you are saying is I would accept a muslim into my church and have him preach about Allah and Mohammed and I would not, I would leave the service and the church. I am totally consistent.

You do not vote to ban the construction of synagogs and masonic lodges -- even though both are institutions that spead "false religions" and lead many to hell.

They are not asking me to go to the service they provide either. My business could get sued by gays, the mosque can't sue me for anything. Gays can live how they want, if they reject the Bible that is their right but DO NOT ask me to vote for a sinful lifestyle it will not happen.

So do I or other equal rights supporters buy it when you say that you are voting against gay marriage because you care for the souls of homosexuals?

No we don't sorry... if you really cared about everyone's souls and if you really voted in accordance with the Bible, you wouldn't support the freedom of religion either.

Wrong, read above.

But you do because you've been raised in a culture that is thankful for religious tolerance, cause you know very well that without such tolerance your freedom of religion would be threatened by people who don't like your faith -- people who see your faith as a "Christian agenda" meant to harm our children and destroy families. (obviously I don't believe that characterization, but it's the exact characterization people use on gays all of the time) So that's why you support the freedom of religion but not equal rights for gays, Christians or otherwise.

Wrong again I have opposed strip clubs in our community and I would vote that filth to be illegal.

Yes, it's a double standard. This is why so many supporters of LGBT rights might sometimes assume that there are other motives beyond religious beliefs that come into play. When one cannot logically defend the way they vote scripturally -- or when they pick and choose which scriptural principles to base their vote on -- it's really hard for any of us to believe that hatred or bigotry isn't a factor; it really is.

If it's not hatred, then it's another motive, most likely a cultural motive or a personal disgust. Of course no one will ever admit this, because they prefer to hide behind Leviticus and claim that they are only doing God's will.

Please show me where I have any other motive other than standing up for the bible. I am not doing anything to stop any gay person today from living with, going to a place, or spending time with any person they wish. They are asking me to drop my belief system at the door for this issue.

[I am one of these Christians who contend that the Bible isn't the perfect word of God. This is because there are so many God ordained genocides and hideous evils and factual errors about everything from biology to astronomy. And I don't believe that God is a liar. I believe that God is love, and almost everything Jesus did, and all the descriptions of God's nature in the New testament contradict everything said about God or attributed to God in the Old Testament. So sure, I certainly believe that there is human influence there -- and now to the point where I believe that it is entirely a human document. Most of my fellow Christians will not go that far, but I do because of what I know about the scriptures. But you don't have to believe that the Bible is the work of man to admit that there is some pretty nasty stuff in the Bible and that it's attributed to God -- if you are adamant about believing that every dot and tittle is God breathed, then you should at least be aware of those passages, and not just pretend like they aren't there are are perfectly justified and okay because God is omnipotent.

And you don't even have to believe that Biblical inerrancy is false to not read the bible literally. Most of Jesus' parables weren't actual factual accounts. They were parables. There is lots of metaphoric stuff in the Bible and if you read it all literally then you're bound to miss deeper things -- even fundamentalists admit that.

I guess we just disagree I view the Bible as literal and understand that Jesus spoke in parable form. But the Bible, for the vast majority, should be read literally. (Revelation included)

The photographers were a business. They offered services to everyone but gays -- even if it wasn't a Christian wedding. When a gay couple asked in an email if they would come take pictures, they refused -- and when the gay couple asked why, they said that it was because they were gay.

Some state laws prohibit business from discrimination based on race, gender, religion, AND sexual orientation.

The business should have been sued because it was discriminating plain and simple. No one buys the argument that taking pictures at the gay wedding was against their beliefs when they supported non-Christian marriages by taking pictures for non Christian clients. There's a double standard and it all boils down to gay people - hence the discrimination.

So they would be ok if I showed up wearing a shirt that had the Leviticus Bible verse on it? Could I speak of my concern that the lifestyle will damn their soul for all of eternity? WHY ELSE would they make this an issue but to sue and shut up christians. Our view points don't fit with what they think and believe me if I was forced to be there they would get a sermon.

It is simply a nonsensical, un-evidenced, fear-based claim. It holds no water, and no one buys it.

I have shown other countries are already there and we will follow suit. I buy it and know many people who believe the same thing.


As I said above, Businesses are not churches and churches can be as intolerant as they want --- look even WBC won a Supreme Court Case to be able to protest within a certain range of funerals -- if that flies under our laws, then Christians are safe -- even if homophobic sermons are ever classified as hate-speech.

If radical Muslim groups can go out on the streets and praise Osama bin Laden, then pastors can go out on the streets and preach like Lively -- it's called freedom of speech and you can't be successfully sued for that, especially if you are a church.

Why can't Hagee preach in Canada then? Why would I not worry that is coming here?

So are you saying that gays are exceptional sinners or that their "sin" is worse than others?

No, I don't think you've expressed that view.

thank you, I am no better than anyone else

I'm not saying you have to vote in favor of allowing federal recognition of marriage for LGBT persons. But that isn't the issue here. The issue is, most of the GOP candidates support a constitutional amendment to the constitution which defines a legal marriage as one between a man and a woman -- simultaneously prohibiting marriage for gays as well as civil unions, even in states which have already recognized it. So not only is that position big government over state's rights, it's also rendering all gay unions and marriages as null and void.

We need the amendment and I am glad the GOP supports the amendment.

2. If my decision to grant rights to people who choose to marry, even if I didn't agree with their decision, leads other people to hell -- then your decision not to petition the government to ban non-Christian religions sends a lot of people to hell too. Of course it goes both ways. Even though this argument fails to account for the personal will of people, who are at the end of the day responsible for their own actions.

I agree that you send yourself to hell.

23 All things are lawful, but not all things are helpful. All things are lawful, but not all things build up. 24 Let no one seek his own good, but the good of his neighbor. 25 Eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising any question on the ground of conscience. 26 For the earth is the Lords, and the fullness thereof. 27 If one of the unbelievers invites you to dinner and you are disposed to go, eat whatever is set before you without raising any question on the ground of conscience.

Paul is saying here is do not offend someone if he feels something is not clean and won't eat it. He is saying the law is broken but do not start an unnecessary fight, this has nothing to do with being ok with a sinful lifestyle.

28 But if someone says to you, This has been offered in sacrifice, then do not eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for the sake of conscience" 29 I do not mean your conscience, but his. For why should my liberty be determined by someone elses conscience? 30 If I partake with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of that for which I give thanks?

31 So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. 32 Give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God, 33 just as I try to please everyone in everything I do, not seeking my own advantage, but that of many, that they may be saved.
_____
SOURCE

These verses have nothing to do with gay marriage.

It's my right because I'm not denying anything but flawed arguments. If you can present a coherent legitimate argument which people can accept for banning gay marriage, then I would consider it.

Show me 1 Bible verse where Jesus does not ask repentance from sin or that love between two men is acceptable and how that fits against Revelation 21:8

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.

But if you cannot, and I believe you cannot, then simply say so. Simply admit that you think gay marriage is a sin and nothing can shake you from that assumption because you are convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that its wrong and should be illegal --

And I will respect you for that even though I will argue the reasons why I disagree.

I have only ever said I care what the word of God says, I do not try to hide where I get my opinions from. If God calls something sin then so will I. The only way I have changed an opinion is from someone showing me I was wrong in my view of the Bible, otherwise you are correct my opinion is in cement.

What I do not respect are sad attempts to use slippery slope fallacies, and hypothesize of what could happen based on nothing. Don't make up things like East of Eden does -- don't attempt to justify something you cannot -- simply admit that you believe God says it, and leave it at that -- and though I might disagree with you thoroughly on what God "says" and your interpretation and reasoning etc, I will respect your opinion and your argument for not attempting to use fearful "persecution" myths -- none of which can be supported or taken seriously.

I make nothing up but I have shown you Canada and the pastor in Sweden that was on trial for "hate speech", why is it a big stretch to think that is coming here?

And so long as you oppose the legal rights of other people, no one will want to listen to you or to other Christians.

In my mind, opponents of gay marriage are like the Christians in Paul's day to told the poor to come and sit at their feet, whilst the rich sit on nice couches. They are like Christians who didn't want the uncircumcised in their midst, who believed that one could not be saved if the uncircumcised lifestyle was allowed in their faith.

Please show me in scripture then where I am wrong.

If you think otherwise, okay... can you name any gay Christians in your church?

Imma take a wild guess and say no.

There are ex- gays but no there are no practicing homosexuals in our church. They would be allowed but only if they quit the lifestyle. We would not let ANYONE living in open sin to continue to be a part of our church. Why would they want to when they can go to a church that will tell them what they want to hear and lead them unknowingly into the fires of hell? Who is doing the sinner the bigger disservice?

[Question Everything]

But you do because you've been raised in a culture that is thankful for religious tolerance, cause you know very well that without such tolerance your freedom of religion would be threatened by people who don't like your faith -- people who see your faith as a "Christian agenda" meant to harm our children and destroy families. (obviously I don't believe that characterization, but it's the exact characterization people use on gays all of the time) So that's why you support the freedom of religion but not equal rights for gays, Christians or otherwise.

Wrong again I have opposed strip clubs in our community and I would vote that filth to be illegal.

I am totally lost. Who said anything about strip clubs?

[JoeyKnothead]

I think God hates homosexuals / homosexuality.

I believe God hates homosexuals / homosexuality.

What I CAN'T do is show I speak truth in this regard.

But I'm gonna hate on 'em just as much as I possibly can.

Frankly, I'm fed up with hearing religious zealots speak of the oppression of others as if they are on some grand moral crusade.

This is nothing more than human bigotry and hatred hiding behind a god that none can show exists. All available evidence indicates the "believer" has come to a human decision that homosexuality is to be condemned, and danged if they don't go about trying to do it.

Shame on the lot of ya, and your putrid god.

[JoeyKnothead]

But you do because you've been raised in a culture that is thankful for religious tolerance, cause you know very well that without such tolerance your freedom of religion would be threatened by people who don't like your faith -- people who see your faith as a "Christian agenda" meant to harm our children and destroy families. (obviously I don't believe that characterization, but it's the exact characterization people use on gays all of the time) So that's why you support the freedom of religion but not equal rights for gays, Christians or otherwise.

Wrong again I have opposed strip clubs in our community and I would vote that filth to be illegal.

I am totally lost. Who said anything about strip clubs?

Haven't you heard, the god that hates homosexuality hates naked women.

[Question Everything]

I think that this whole thread has taken a detour into the Twilight Zone. I can't figure it out at all.

[SailingCyclops]

Wrong again I have opposed strip clubs in our community and I would vote that filth to be illegal.

You are sounding more and more like the Taliban. Fortunately for us, we do not live in a theocracy, as much as you might like to think we do. Making laws based on your religion, or your particular interpretation of your religion is simply not allowed under our constitution.

We live in a secular, and evolving country. That means that you will never succeed in forcing your religious ideas, morals, or bigotry on the rest of us. As hard as you may try. We are becoming more and more civilized as time goes on. The younger generations are not homophobic, racist, or sexist like older generations are, and things are changing. DATA has been repealed, many states now ban discrimination based on sexual orientation, seven states already allow gay marriage, here in NY, we are about to become the eighth. You can't stop human progress towards a more just and equitable society.

Why can't Hagee preach in Canada then? Why would I not worry that is coming here?

Are you certain this is so? I can't find any references to him being banned in Canada. I know Canada doesn't allow lying on news broadcasts, Fox News' Lies Keep Them Out of Canada. Is it possible Canada also doesn't allow hate speech? Is this possibly why Hagee is banned? Or did you hear it on Fox news perhaps? Another one of their lies?

I wouldn't be too worried about Hagee being banned here. We even allow Nazis to speak here! Free speech means any and all sorts of hate and bigotry can be preached here. Not to worry. Hagee is safe here.

Bob

[Darias]

And I can say from experience, from friends and my church that disdain and disgust towards gays is painfully evident. I also see this attitude in famous pastors like Falwell, and Lively.

There is nothing more to say about Dr. Falwell, I believe he was a wonderful man of God and is with Jesus now. I'm sorry you feel differently.

Just because he was a famous Christian, and just because he was a pastor, doesn't mean that what he said hasn't hurt anyone because it has. Of course that was his right, but freedom entails responsibility. And when you say hateful things, you must be prepared for the consequences -- and the consequences have been essentially more hatred and fear of gays in America and around the world.

I am not the kinda guy who judges where people go after death. What I care more about is the kinda impact they left behind. And it is my belief that he and his ugly words have left a black stain on our faith.

And I'm not just saying this for the sake of it. I have plenty of quotes which I believe to be un-Christian and hateful, quotes he once said -- quotes which unlike his presence on this earth, last forever.

"AIDS is not just God's punishment for homosexuals; it is God's punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals."

[...]

"Christians, like slaves and soldiers, ask no questions."

[...]

"I believe that global warming is a myth. And so, therefore, I have no conscience problems at all and I'm going to buy a Suburban next time."

[...]

"I truly cannot imagine men with men, women with women, doing what they were not physically created to do, without abnormal stress and misbehavior."

[...]

"If you're not a born-again Christian, you're a failure as a human being."

_____
1, 2

So, in Falwell's view, God demonstrates His love for us by imparting onto humanity a horrible disease because we tolerate the existence of humans he hates?

So, God is afraid of questions? Forget discernment, just listen to whatever your pastor says? Just flip the Bible open and start reading -- context, time period, author, all irrelevant?

So much for being a good steward of the earth. Might as well burn tires then cause the Lord's commin' back soon -- who cares right?

Yes, so loving. "Gays are abnormal because I'm so straight I couldn't imagine anyone else having homosexual feelings. Everyone is straight!"

"Unless you agree with the Bible according to me, you're worthless!"


Oh and the crowning statement, in response to 9/11:

... I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way -- all of them who have tried to secularize America -- I point the finger in their face and say, 'You helped this happen.
_____
SOURCE

I wonder what was the source that led to the belief that "Gays doom nations"? Man, I guess we'll never know.


But you're right, enough of Falwell. Let's let him rest in peace.

1. I, as a Christian, personally find it extremely insulting to erroneously claim that Christians are being persecuted in America, when a majority of Americans identify with Christianity, and when our freedoms are not taken away from us because of our faith. Whereas, in other countries, this is not the case. Christians are killed, terrorized, imprisoned, etc. I'm offended that you would even suggest Christians are suffering here.

I said no such thing. You must have a different view of persecution than I do. Our faith is coming under attack from the left and, in my opinion, will become persecution soon.

By attack, you mean rational inquiry, doubt, objection, and maybe even religious humor? How do you go from that to "Oh one day Christians in America will be hauled off to jail and killed for their beliefs -- and it all starts with legalizing rights for gays!"

I think that a very lose term of persecution really waters down the meaning of the word. Christians are not being persecuted in America period. They might be made fun of, stereotyped, -- and their faith may be doubted and debated -- but there are no gallows and prisons for Christians. And so long as America maintains her freedom, such a scenario will never come to pass.

Other Christians around the word are suffering and their services are being attacked, etc. -- those people are being persecuted; we are not.

I as a member of the left of center, strongly support the first amendment -- Free speech and Freedom of Religion. I support it regardless of who's talking, whether it's Phelps or someone kinder than him. Supporting freedom of speech does not = supporting the content of such speech. Freedom of speech is inherent to American laws and values, and it will never be stripped away from us.

2. What laws sir? What laws? I'd ask you to name one but I won't because there aren't. You're making false claims in order to justify your position, and I'd rather you just stick with your position, rather than invent anti-Christian laws.

Hate crimes bills are including gays and if gay marriage is legal in the US there church will be under further attack. It is your choice to not believe it but I do. In Canada you can not preach against homosexuality on the air, that is a fact. John Hagee can't preach there and if you think the same thing won't happen here I think you are very much mistaken.

1. Hate crimes laws for gays functions like hate crimes laws for people of a certain race or religion. If you are attacked solely because you are a Christian, you can use that when you take your attacker to court.

Gays are also protected from discrimination in certain states, which means that companies cannot fire or discriminate in who they hire based upon their sexual orientation -- this is not the case in most states, and I wish it was.

Imagine if Walmart, Pizza Hut, McDonalds, or Chick-fil-A denied services to a person they believed to be gay? Is that justified? Does servicing gay people offend Christian beliefs -- yet serving non-Christians, alcoholics, and racial minorities does not?

It's an injustice. It's wrong. Like I said before, it's like Christians who tell the poor people to come and sit at their feet, while they cater to the rich -- it's wrong.

This is why such bills exist. Those bills do not exist to "oppress Christians." Sure it may offend Christians who don't want to be in the presence of a homosexual while they eat their happy meal at McDonald's. I guess those bills infringe on their "right to not tolerate individuals."


2. Canadian Free Speech and Hate Speech Laws are fundamentally different from American ones, which are protected in our Constitution. Canadians lack the freedoms we possess in that regard because their system is formulated upon British law.

Because Canadian Law is not American Law, and never will be, It is a mighty giant leap of faith to believe that "We're next, just you wait; we'll all be in jail because of the speech-police" Nonsense. This is an irrational, fear-based assumption.

I for one hope that Canada strives for reforms which secure more leeway in free speech.


3. I have not heard about John Hagee not being allowed to speak in Canada; I would like to see your source if you have one. But I agree that if he isn't, that isn't right. And far be it from me to agree with anything he sells people. But I still defend his right to preach. His right to preach in America will never be infringed upon, as evidenced by WBC and the KKK -- both of which are allowed to be as racist and homophobic as their hearts desire.

Laws prohibiting hate speech are unconstitutional in the United States, outside of obscenity, defamation, incitement to riot, and fighting words.[36][37][38] The United States federal government and state governments are broadly forbidden by the First Amendment of the Constitution from restricting speech.[39]

The "reason why ghting words are categorically excluded from the protection of the First Amendment is not that their content communicates any particular idea, but that their content embodies a particularly intolerable (and socially unnecessary) mode of expressing whatever idea the speaker wishes to convey."[40] Even in cases where speech encourages illegal violence, instances of incitement qualify as criminal only if the threat of violence is imminent.[41] This strict standard prevents prosecution of many cases of incitement, including prosecution of those advocating violent opposition to the government, and those exhorting violence against racial, ethnic, or gender minorities.[42]
_____
SOURCE

I think you are mistaken in that you don't account for the laws under the U.S. Constitution, which has stood the test of time for quite some time now. I strongly, strongly endorse Freedom of Speech, no matter who's speaking. If people are offended, well that's too bad, this is America, and freedom of speech is as fundamental a right as the freedom to work and shop or whatever. If people are upset with that, they'll just have to deal with it.

I deal with it when I listen to John Hagee. I believe he is also harmful for Christianity and that his words are painfully un-Christlike, as exemplified Here:

[center][youtube][/youtube][/center]

And although, Hagee literally makes me sick to my stomach, I'll stand right by him and defend his rights to say whatever he wants to say -- 'cause this is America. And I'm really not the only one who supports the freedom of speech, you can bet your life on that one.

homophobia in this country has led to the suicides of countless self-described gay children.

So it's my fault gay kids kill themselves? If you feel that way I am sorry but I will not be made out to be a killer to silence the truth. It is horrible that people make fun of someone for who they are but for that to be an accomplice to murder is not true.

When have I claimed that you are the reason for gay suicides? You're inserting yourself into my argument for no reason. And although I firmly support free-speech, I know it can lead to bad consequences. This is why great freedom like our freedom of speech comes with a lot of responsibility.

If you don't think that what big preachers say has a big influences on families and parents and children -- and if you don't think they regurgitate that garbage onto others with no regard to possible consequences -- well -- you're wrong.

Gay teens in America have a higher rate of suicides than straight teens -- and guess what - it ain't cause their gay. It's cause they are bullied; it's cause they are made to believe something is wrong with them and when they can't change they see no way out.

Gays aren't ending themselves for no reason -- and it's no mystery that hardline Christian teachings have had a hand in influencing hatred -- which can be very very harmful. Go see for yourself. Do some research on the young people who aren't around any more. Please don't ignore the reality. I'm not blaming you; I'm not -- but you gotta admit that gays sure aren't killing themselves because of liberals, that's for sure.

If this says anything, it says that Christians have failed the gay community. They have failed to show love before judgement. And they have failed miserably. And it's enough to bring me to tears.

You believe that your interpretation of scripture and your doctrines and beliefs are indistinguishable from God's will?

No, I am not that vain. I can't possibly know God's entire will but I think he is crystal clear about the homosexual lifestyle.

There's that buzzword "lifestyle" again. Is it also a lifestyle for you to have natural urges for the opposite sex? Using "lifestyle" in a weak attempt to make gay feelings seem illegitimate isn't fooling anyone. Would admitting that choice may not always be involved shatter your worldview in any way?

But even if you and others are firm in your own estimations, it really isn't related to the issue of same-sex marriage. There are many Christians who believe that being gay and having a relationship is a sin, and yet they still support legal rights for gays.

For a clearer explanation on how this may be, please read this document. The author is a female fundamentalist Christian. Check out what she has to say. Her arguments might be more well received than mine.

How can anyone attempt to show, argue, debate, or point out flaws in your beliefs and assumptions if you believe without question that your thoughts and beliefs are one with God's? How could anyone show you otherwise if you won't give them the benefit of the doubt - if you won't consider within the realm of all possibilities that your estimation is not 100% correct.

I'm not debating with God; I'm debating with you -- and if your mind is set on "no gay marriage 'cause Jesus said it to me personally" -- then no amount of facts, data, arguments, or stories can ever change your mind or persuade you to think of things in a different light.

I am not always right, nor do I claim to be but show me a Bible verse that accepts the homosexual lifestyle. Just one. Please don't just say Jesus loves everyone because yes I know he does, he loves the homosexual as much as he ever loved me. I get that but he does not tolerate sin and you are using your own views to paint your picture please use a Bible verse to change mine.

My problem with your request is that I wouldn't know where to begin. You have said it yourself that you read the Bible literally; I personally have no idea which passages, if any, that you read as metaphor. I personally do not know your position on Old Covenant, and which laws still apply under the New Covenant.

Even if I find a decontextualized scripture verse and use it in an argument, you will only rebut with your own set of decontextualized, isolated verses. It would be like a theological debate between Calvinism and Arminianism, both of which have a plethora of verses to support their position, all of which are taken out of their context and read literally.

However, I can, and I already have, show you entire passages of scripture which define other sinful practices which are tolerated in Christian churches today, these include divorce and remarriage, female pastors, and not requiring coverings for women. All of which were strictly forbidden by Paul.

And if Paul's words are read as inerrant words of God when it comes to his condemnation of gay people, why do you attempt to place any cultural context around Paul's words concerning slaves and women? By doing so, are you not downplaying God's inerrant word because your own cultural customs disagree? Are you not doing the same thing I do when I defend gay people? Are you not being arbitrary in which verses you read literally and which verses you properly establish context (aka "explain away," "water down," etc.)

And even if I could convince you that being gay isn't a sin according to a fundamentalist reading of scripture -- it doesn't necessarily follow that you would vote for gay marriage would you? Because, as East of Eden argues it would "destroy the family" and be "harmful for society" etc etc...

Yet you do not vote against religious freedom to ban Judaism, Islam, or Buddhism -- although all are false/incomplete teachings that lead people to be damned. Is not attending the religious services of "false-religions" also a sinful lifestyle?

First they are not trying to pass any laws to change society and we try to evangelize the other religions. What you are saying is I would accept a muslim into my church and have him preach about Allah and Mohammed and I would not, I would leave the service and the church. I am totally consistent.

Gays aren't trying to pass a law that would affect society. Gays only want the same rights as straight individuals already possess in society; they want to be a part of society! The Right is the only group trying to impose a law on the entire American society right now -- not gays.

You are right! Because you value the religious rights to worship, it doesn't mean you have to invite Muslim imams to preach to your congregation -- but you still support their right to preach to Muslims and build their own mosques -- (I'm assuming you do, but I have been wrong before)

In the same way, if a Christian values equal legal rights for all people, it doesn't mean that they automatically approve of homosexuality, invite gay pastors or gay people into their church, and marry gay people.

And it is because of this fact that you are indeed being inconsistent. You want to vote to take away the rights of one group because you see them as a threat to society -- but this group isn't Orthodox Jews, African Americans, or Scientologists -- this group is homosexuals.

And even though allowing false religions in a "Christian country" no doubt "leads" countless people to hell -- it's okay because those religions aren't gay people. And gay people are the real danger.

You do not vote to ban the construction of synagogs and masonic lodges -- even though both are institutions that spead "false religions" and lead many to hell.

They are not asking me to go to the service they provide either. My business could get sued by gays, the mosque can't sue me for anything. Gays can live how they want, if they reject the Bible that is their right but DO NOT ask me to vote for a sinful lifestyle it will not happen.

Yes, your business could be sued by gays. If you made a lemonade stand and hung up a sign that said "Straights Only," sure you could get sued and rightly so in my opinion -- and you wouldn't have to be sued by gays; if you were doing that in my neighborhood, I'd sue you myself.

But if you are a pastor, gays can't sue you, or your church or your congregation. That's because the church is protected by the First Amendment. You can tell gays they will burn in hell 'til kingdom come and the courts can't come after you because the Constitution couldn't be any clearer.

Sure someone could try to sue you but they would fail miserably, case-in-point WBC's Supreme Court victory.

So do I or other equal rights supporters buy it when you say that you are voting against gay marriage because you care for the souls of homosexuals?

No we don't sorry... if you really cared about everyone's souls and if you really voted in accordance with the Bible, you wouldn't support the freedom of religion either.

Wrong, read above.

You have demonstrated that your argument is inconsistent. You claim that your banning of other people's rights is solely for the purpose of saving souls by targeting the means by which they can be "led astray."

Yet you tolerate other religions existing in America, even Satanism; you are not protesting and calling for legislation to ban the rights of non-Christians to participate in a "false" religion. And because of your support for religious freedom, based on your own fears that opposing it would pose a risk to your own right to worship, you -- by your own reasoning -- are allowing others to be led astray and ultimately damned.

So that's why I do not buy your argument that you oppose gay marriage for the sake of gay's souls. I'm not saying you don't care about people's souls, but you got to admit that if you based your political activism on the need to save souls, you would be consistent in opposing non-Christian religious freedoms in America.

Tell me, if presented with the possibility to vote to ban non-Christian religions in your country via a Constitutional Amendment, would you do so?

If yes, then I admire you on your consistency and bravery in saying so.

If no, then I congratulate you for your support of freedom, but still rest my case on your inconsistent reasoning.

But you do because you've been raised in a culture that is thankful for religious tolerance, cause you know very well that without such tolerance your freedom of religion would be threatened by people who don't like your faith -- people who see your faith as a "Christian agenda" meant to harm our children and destroy families. (obviously I don't believe that characterization, but it's the exact characterization people use on gays all of the time) So that's why you support the freedom of religion but not equal rights for gays, Christians or otherwise.

Wrong again I have opposed strip clubs in our community and I would vote that filth to be illegal.

I'm sorry for giving you the benefit of the doubt, perhaps you would side with the "yes" option (see above).

Yes, it's a double standard. This is why so many supporters of LGBT rights might sometimes assume that there are other motives beyond religious beliefs that come into play. When one cannot logically defend the way they vote scripturally -- or when they pick and choose which scriptural principles to base their vote on -- it's really hard for any of us to believe that hatred or bigotry isn't a factor; it really is.

If it's not hatred, then it's another motive, most likely a cultural motive or a personal disgust. Of course no one will ever admit this, because they prefer to hide behind Leviticus and claim that they are only doing God's will.

Please show me where I have any other motive other than standing up for the bible. I am not doing anything to stop any gay person today from living with, going to a place, or spending time with any person they wish. They are asking me to drop my belief system at the door for this issue.[/color]

Does your belief system maintain that 1,400 legal rights afforded to a straight couple in a legally recognized union shouldn't be afforded to gays who wish to be with their loved ones?

Please demonstrate that gays are trying to make you relinquish your fundamentalist, doctrinal beliefs? I'm not. I may be arguing against them, but I'm not forcing you to accept anything, and neither are gays. All the LGBT community wants are the same legal rights you have in marriage. They don't want to take over the church and hijack society and sue pastors and force them to marry them -- that's complete none-sense. It is an irrational fear of the gay community and has no basis in reality.

I am one of these Christians who contend that the Bible isn't the perfect word of God. This is because there are so many God ordained genocides and hideous evils and factual errors about everything from biology to astronomy. And I don't believe that God is a liar. I believe that God is love, and almost everything Jesus did, and all the descriptions of God's nature in the New testament contradict everything said about God or attributed to God in the Old Testament. So sure, I certainly believe that there is human influence there -- and now to the point where I believe that it is entirely a human document. Most of my fellow Christians will not go that far, but I do because of what I know about the scriptures. But you don't have to believe that the Bible is the work of man to admit that there is some pretty nasty stuff in the Bible and that it's attributed to God -- if you are adamant about believing that every dot and tittle is God breathed, then you should at least be aware of those passages, and not just pretend like they aren't there are are perfectly justified and okay because God is omnipotent.

And you don't even have to believe that Biblical inerrancy is false to not read the bible literally. Most of Jesus' parables weren't actual factual accounts. They were parables. There is lots of metaphoric stuff in the Bible and if you read it all literally then you're bound to miss deeper things -- even fundamentalists admit that.

I guess we just disagree I view the Bible as literal and understand that Jesus spoke in parable form. But the Bible, for the vast majority, should be read literally. (Revelation included)

No one reads Revelation literally. No one believes that there will be a literal monster with 7 heads... it is a metaphor for something else.

I contend that the author is speaking metaphorically in regards to his own time during the persecution of Nero and Domitian. Roman coinage bore the name of the beast - and you couldn't buy or sell without it. Greek letters of the alphabet were also used as numbers, so whether the named added up to 666 or 616 as some Biblical scholars have translated it -- Nero or Domitian would be a perfect fit. It makes sense.

What doesn't make sense is taking random verses from Revelations out of their immediate context and cultural context - time and place - and interpreting them into modern day events and politics.

When you do that, you end up with people like Phelps, or people who think Obama is the anti-Christ, or anti-Semitic accusations of John Hagee who think the anti-Christ is a Jew, and that 2/3s of all Jews will burn in hell and that only 144,000 will survive the onslaught and that they will magically convert to Christianity.

To think that when people read revelation they think they see America, Hitler, the UN, the EU, Julian Assange, etc. -- it makes absolutely no sense. I mean, look at what the Left Behind Series has done; it has convinced a lot of Christians that Europe will establish a one world government and that any peace established by man with Israel and Palestine will usher in Armageddon.

To me, such thinking is madness. But you are welcome to it if that's what you believe.

The photographers were a business. They offered services to everyone but gays -- even if it wasn't a Christian wedding. When a gay couple asked in an email if they would come take pictures, they refused -- and when the gay couple asked why, they said that it was because they were gay.

Some state laws prohibit business from discrimination based on race, gender, religion, AND sexual orientation.

The business should have been sued because it was discriminating plain and simple. No one buys the argument that taking pictures at the gay wedding was against their beliefs when they supported non-Christian marriages by taking pictures for non Christian clients. There's a double standard and it all boils down to gay people - hence the discrimination.

So they would be ok if I showed up wearing a shirt that had the Leviticus Bible verse on it? Could I speak of my concern that the lifestyle will damn their soul for all of eternity? WHY ELSE would they make this an issue but to sue and shut up christians. Our view points don't fit with what they think and believe me if I was forced to be there they would get a sermon.

You can walk around with a Fred Phelps sign for all I care, and you won't get sued. You aren't a business, you are a person who has freedom of speech -- even extreme speech, and even hate speech.

But if you refuse to sell tacos to gay people because their existence, their spouses, offend you -- then get ready for someone to sue you, win, and take all your tacos.

It is simply a nonsensical, un-evidenced, fear-based claim. It holds no water, and no one buys it.

I have shown other countries are already there and we will follow suit. I buy it and know many people who believe the same thing.

You're ignoring the fact that this is the United States of America. We aren't other countries. Our freedom of speech and freedom of religion are protected by our Constitution. Other countries might have a different story; and I just hope their people look to America as an example and push for reforms to their own laws.

Just because a lot of people buy what you've bought, it doesn't mean your argument is any more valid -- that's called an appeal to the majority.

As I said above, Businesses are not churches and churches can be as intolerant as they want --- look even WBC won a Supreme Court Case to be able to protest within a certain range of funerals -- if that flies under our laws, then Christians are safe -- even if homophobic sermons are ever classified as hate-speech.

If radical Muslim groups can go out on the streets and praise Osama bin Laden, then pastors can go out on the streets and preach like Lively -- it's called freedom of speech and you can't be successfully sued for that, especially if you are a church.

Why can't Hagee preach in Canada then? Why would I not worry that is coming here?

As I said above, Canadian laws are based on the UK system of law. Their freedoms of speech are less than ours. They should vote for reform or amend their own laws.

Our Constitution forbids the banning of hate speech, so again, riding down the slippery slope and pointing to countries that do not have our laws does not add any validity to your fear-based argument.

So are you saying that gays are exceptional sinners or that their "sin" is worse than others?

No, I don't think you've expressed that view.

thank you, I am no better than anyone else

I never said you were, but you are pretty adamant that gay marriage assures eternal damnation, which is why you claim you vote against it.

I'm not saying you have to vote in favor of allowing federal recognition of marriage for LGBT persons. But that isn't the issue here. The issue is, most of the GOP candidates support a constitutional amendment to the constitution which defines a legal marriage as one between a man and a woman -- simultaneously prohibiting marriage for gays as well as civil unions, even in states which have already recognized it. So not only is that position big government over state's rights, it's also rendering all gay unions and marriages as null and void.

We need the amendment and I am glad the GOP supports the amendment.

That amendment itself would be unconstitutional, as it violates the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment, which guarantees Americans equal protections under the law.

The DOMA federal ban would prohibit homosexual unions and marriages from being recognized in all the states. The DOMA wouldn't defend anything, it would only impose Levitical Law on people and strip the rights of others who only wish to live their lives.

2. If my decision to grant rights to people who choose to marry, even if I didn't agree with their decision, leads other people to hell -- then your decision not to petition the government to ban non-Christian religions sends a lot of people to hell too. Of course it goes both ways. Even though this argument fails to account for the personal will of people, who are at the end of the day responsible for their own actions.

I agree that you send yourself to hell.

I hope you realize that my argument of your point was an attempt to illustrate your inconsistency. I don't think you are actually sending anyone anywhere because I don't believe hell is a literal place of lava. If it was, I'd never want anyone to go there. And if people did, I'd leave that judgement up to God.

23 All things are lawful, but not all things are helpful. All things are lawful, but not all things build up. 24 Let no one seek his own good, but the good of his neighbor. 25 Eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising any question on the ground of conscience. 26 For the earth is the Lords, and the fullness thereof. 27 If one of the unbelievers invites you to dinner and you are disposed to go, eat whatever is set before you without raising any question on the ground of conscience. 28 But if someone says to you, This has been offered in sacrifice, then do not eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for the sake of conscience" 29 I do not mean your conscience, but his. For why should my liberty be determined by someone elses conscience? 30 If I partake with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of that for which I give thanks?

31 So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. 32 Give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God, 33 just as I try to please everyone in everything I do, not seeking my own advantage, but that of many, that they may be saved.
_____
SOURCE

Paul is saying here is do not offend someone if he feels something is not clean and won't eat it. He is saying the law is broken but do not start an unnecessary fight, this has nothing to do with being ok with a sinful lifestyle.

These verses have nothing to do with gay marriage.

But clean and unclean food has no meaning to us in a modern society, back then it was everything. People thought that if you weren't circumcised and if you ate unclean foods you were living in a sinful lifestyle and would go to hell...

You're missing the point of the overall message; you're so caught up on meat that you're ignoring the words "all things are lawful," you're also ignoring the part about liberty being infringed because of someone else's conscious convictions to the contrary (in this case it was meat, but if you apply the overall lesson to today, everything from tastes in worship music to gay marriage would also fall under this). You're also overlooking the part about giving no offense for the sake that many may come to Christ. Well forbidding the liberties of others for your own convictions is a great offense to the others -- and it leads no one to Christ.

It's my right because I'm not denying anything but flawed arguments. If you can present a coherent legitimate argument which people can accept for banning gay marriage, then I would consider it.

Show me 1 Bible verse where Jesus does not ask repentance from sin or that love between two men is acceptable and how that fits against Revelation 21:8

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.

That's like asking me to smell the color nine. First, as I said before, 1 literally read scripture-verse would not be sufficient for you. You would claim that it was "out of context whilst simultaneously ignoring the context of your own assortment of random scriptures condemning homosexuality.

What the author of revelations says has nothing to do with what is attributed to Moses. Both are completely different cultures and time periods - completely different works. Claiming that it is all the infallible word of God does not automatically make scriptures compatible with each other.

But since you keep asking, I'll try.

Please take a few moments to read this argument and the verses it presents.

But if you cannot, and I believe you cannot, then simply say so. Simply admit that you think gay marriage is a sin and nothing can shake you from that assumption because you are convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that its wrong and should be illegal --

And I will respect you for that even though I will argue the reasons why I disagree.

I have only ever said I care what the word of God says, I do not try to hide where I get my opinions from. If God calls something sin then so will I. The only way I have changed an opinion is from someone showing me I was wrong in my view of the Bible, otherwise you are correct my opinion is in cement.

I appreciate your honesty but your reasoning leaves much to be desired

What I do not respect are sad attempts to use slippery slope fallacies, and hypothesize of what could happen based on nothing. Don't make up things like East of Eden does -- don't attempt to justify something you cannot -- simply admit that you believe God says it, and leave it at that -- and though I might disagree with you thoroughly on what God "says" and your interpretation and reasoning etc, I will respect your opinion and your argument for not attempting to use fearful "persecution" myths -- none of which can be supported or taken seriously.

I make nothing up but I have shown you Canada and the pastor in Sweden that was on trial for "hate speech", why is it a big stretch to think that is coming here?

You have no referenced anything or provided any articles or sources whatsoever. I'm still wondering if it's true if Hagee can go to Canada or not. And that pastor in Sweden was acquitted of any wrong doing.

He would have never been subject to being prosecuted for hate-speech in this country because hate-speech is protected under the First Amendment.

And so long as you oppose the legal rights of other people, no one will want to listen to you or to other Christians.

In my mind, opponents of gay marriage are like the Christians in Paul's day to told the poor to come and sit at their feet, whilst the rich sit on nice couches. They are like Christians who didn't want the uncircumcised in their midst, who believed that one could not be saved if the uncircumcised lifestyle was allowed in their faith.

Please show me in scripture then where I am wrong.

I have already given you an article mentioning the relationship of David and Jonathan, but I'm sure you'll either dismiss it, take offense to it, or claim that it was one of David's sins he repented of.

If you think otherwise, okay... can you name any gay Christians in your church?

Imma take a wild guess and say no.

There are ex- gays but no there are no practicing homosexuals in our church. They would be allowed but only if they quit the lifestyle. We would not let ANYONE living in open sin to continue to be a part of our church. Why would they want to when they can go to a church that will tell them what they want to hear and lead them unknowingly into the fires of hell? Who is doing the sinner the bigger disservice?

There are precious few true ex-gays; most were heterosexual with mild homosexual tendencies, or perhaps they were bi-sexual. I think its more harmful to suppress one's sexuality and "pray the gay away," force yourself into a straight marriage, have kids, and preach against homosexuality, then come out of the closet and get a divorce...

But my point is, you won't even let gays into your doors until they pretend to be someone they're not. How many other Christians do you ask to shape-up before coming to Christ?

Anyways, my point still stands that as long as the Christian right opposes rights and equality, they will effectively serve as thorns to the seeds of searching homosexuals who wish they had God's grace too.

Still, whether or not homosexuality is a sin is a completely distinct and separate matter from whether or not gays should have the same rights as everyone else.

[Goat]

I think that this whole thread has taken a detour into the Twilight Zone. I can't figure it out at all.

The point i think is that Lastcallhall is saying he objects to all forms of what he thinks is immorality, and is willing to try to use the law to impose his moral ideals on others who do not share them.