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?

[SailingCyclops]

I don't need my kids being taught the two mommies is just as acceptable as a mother and father that fear and follow the Lord.

What about this do you object to?

"Bottom line, it's only beneficial to share with students the broad diversity of the human experience and that our democracy protects everyone,"

Our democracy protects you as well. I don't think you want to put a kink in that, as it prevents your "lifestyle" from being discriminated against in the future, the very thing you seem to fear.

Bob

[Clownboat]

Again I hate nobody,I don't care what people choose to do in private but the goal is to force the lifestyle on everyone and for everyone to accept it as normal.

Please prove that the goal is to force the (gay) lifestyle on everyone or retract. I'll join your cause if you can prove the "goal", because I would prefer to not be forced to be gay.

[lastcallhall]

Wanting all children to be taught revisionist history in order to exclude a minority from it, is your right. However the attitude is clearly bigotry, I am afraid, per the definition of the word. It doesn't matter if your bible says specifically that gays are evil, or if God comes down from on high to tell the president himself on national television that he disproves of homosexuals. That would just be God making bigoted statements.

I am not looking for revisionist history I just don't need my child taught so and so did this and oh by the way he was gay and had a husband. Why does my child need to know that? I will not let the school decide my childs moral compass.

If you want to shelter your children from truth and carefully expose them to anti-gay propaganda, that's also your right, but the government funded school system should not support *your* agenda.

I speak the truth, why do I have to deal with government funded gay propaganda?

All the law does is prevent teachers in public school classrooms from making bigoted statements towards a minority group, and having their contributions to history and culture not be specifically excluded as subject matter. As opposed to just ignoring them, because you don't like them.

I did not say I do not like them. How about you stop putting words in my mouth?
I didn't say you 'hated' anyone.

I am sorry if I put words into your mouth.

If you want to shelter your kids from a full and accurate education, don't let them go to a secular school system.

I agree my kids go to christian schools

Put them in a compound, deny their access to television, radio, newspapers, and the internet, and feed them a steady diet of your particular brand of religious intolerance towards homosexuals, and I am sure they will grow up believing whatever you want them to believe.

Thanks, if I have to I will.

[lastcallhall]

How is correcting an injustice, and a historical innacuracy "pushing the gay agenda"??

What is currently inaccurate in the CA school books? My guess is they want to add in that so and so was gay and start talking about how normal and acceptable that is.

Why shouldn't the history of the gay liberation movement, from Stonewall, to DADT, to the fight for marriage equality be included in our history? It is HISTORY, it did happen, it is happening. On what basis would you exclude teaching these historical events which took place in our country?

history books don't bring up everything that happens, can we add church history? Can I add the history of my church into the books?

Would you be OK with excluding black liberation history because there are racists who are offended by racial equality? Would you be OK excluding the womens suffrage movement because you may not agree women should vote? How is what you are complaining about any different?

They are not pushing an agenda

Excluding facts, be they scientific or historical, diminishes us, and fosters a dangerous ignorance of reality, our reality. Ignorance gets us nowhere as a society, as a culture, or as a country. To move forward, we must know our past and learn from it. Censoring history because it scares or offends you is not the answer to anything. That mindset of fear, ignorance, and hate brought about the dark ages, a period of horror we can't afford to return to in the 21st century.

Bob

Again can I add any history I would like to the books?

[Meow Mix]

Again can I add any history I would like to the books?

If a history book correctly noted that Isaac Newton was a Christian and an alchemist, would that be objectionable?

If not, why is correctly noting that Leonardo da Vinci was homosexual objectionable?

[lastcallhall]

Again can I add any history I would like to the books?

If a history book correctly noted that Isaac Newton was a Christian and an alchemist, would that be objectionable?

If not, why is correctly noting that Leonardo da Vinci was homosexual objectionable?

Why add either one? What is the point of adding something that is not relevant to the history lesson? Should we mention if someone was a drunk or a womanizer? Does that change what they contribute to history? My guess is there is much more to this than adding so and so was gay.

[Meow Mix]

Why add either one? What is the point of adding something that is not relevant to the history lesson? Should we mention if someone was a drunk or a womanizer? Does that change what they contribute to history? My guess is there is much more to this than adding so and so was gay.

I agree with you that if a tidbit is extraneous that it needn't be entered into a text, but supposing that it's something historically significant about the person it should be included.

I'm not saying anything should be made to sound glorious or anything, but if someone's homosexuality or views on homosexuality are historically significant -- or if events are historically significant like the gay rights movement -- then it should be covered in history from a neutral perspective since it is in fact history.

To be fair I can't really think of that many examples where this would be a big deal, so I agree that making a big deal to add homosexual elements to history books stinks of having propagandistic motives. Adding blurbs about the gay rights movement seems just as important as blurbs about women's suffrage and racial equality movements, sure; and there are quite a few significant historical persons that homosexuality played a significant role; but I agree that going around to history books deliberately adding stuff just to add it is kind of silly.

[Deadclown]

I am not looking for revisionist history I just don't need my child taught so and so did this and oh by the way he was gay and had a husband. Why does my child need to know that? I will not let the school decide my childs moral compass.

It seriously amazes me that you can say this. I assume with a straight face.

Do you *really* think that is going to be how it is introduced to your children? I would hope not. What you are wanting is to exclude anything remotely homosexual from social studies classes, which is a big part of our culture and recent history. If you want your child to grow up with your... viewpoint, I am sure you can manage to indoctrinate them after they get home just fine.

I speak the truth, why do I have to deal with government funded gay propaganda?

Because truth is not propaganda I am afraid. Avoiding the exclusion of minorities from social studies classes is not propaganda. Firing public school teachers who make derogatory or bigoted remarks towards a minority group in front of children, also not propaganda. Maybe the word doesn't mean what you think it means?

I am sorry if I put words into your mouth.

Your apology is accepted.

I agree my kids go to christian schools

There you go then. Problem solved. You can protect your children from the sinful homosexual social studies lessons and ensure their right to have teachers who can say that being gay is wrong. Just don't expect the secular government to humor your irrational religious beliefs in order to discriminate against a minority group.

As a hypothetical situation, let's say that an atheist teacher was trying to indoctrinate children with anti-Christian statements and specifically leaving out Christian elements from history. I would oppose that just as much as I oppose your present position.

Thanks, if I have to I will.

Oh... kay.

As Meow Mix points out, you are assuming it is going to be extraneous details. Roman/Greek practices? What about the Sodomy Laws? Oscar Wilde? The Gay Rights Movements that are such a big part of our recent cultural history and current events? Here, I even found a wiki article that summarizes the history in a time line form for your convenience. You are suggesting that not a single thing on that page should be discussed or introduced to children, even those that do not share your specific religious beliefs. And that our secular government should enforce this policy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_LGBT_history

The law does two things.

One, it makes it so that books can't *exclude* homosexual issues (specifically). This does not mean that homosexual references will be added whenever humanely possible (like noting that some people think Lincoln was gay).

Two, government employees who's responsibility is instructing children cannot express any bigoted views they might have towards homosexuals. Even if they have such views.

The law does not say that they are going to lock your kids in a room with pins keeping their eyes open and force them to watch gay porn until they get a taste for it.

[micatala]

Again can I add any history I would like to the books?

If a history book correctly noted that Isaac Newton was a Christian and an alchemist, would that be objectionable?

If not, why is correctly noting that Leonardo da Vinci was homosexual objectionable?

Why add either one? What is the point of adding something that is not relevant to the history lesson? Should we mention if someone was a drunk or a womanizer? Does that change what they contribute to history? My guess is there is much more to this than adding so and so was gay.

I would agree the personal lives and characteristics of historical figures are usually not central and in many cases could be omitted.

On the other hand, including such "trivia" is you want to call it that is not without some merit. Noting that Newton was an alchemist (or that he spent more time writing on his rather unorthodox religious views than on his science) does have value.

It points out that even geniuses who produce works of great merit can also have false views and produce works that are of questionable value or even worthless. It underscores the humanity of the person. It also emphasizes that even in "historical times" there were diverse views. It let students know that people in the past were also susceptible to biases, conspriacy theories, and other irrational influences.


Noting that a historical figure is gay can serve similar educational purposes, even if it is just to let students know that gay people existed in the past and, despite the cultural attitudes regarding gayness at that time, whatever they were, still experienced success. This is not unlike noting the successes of women scientists or politicians in eras where women in these fields were a rarity. In both cases, noting these facts and how they may have influenced the individual's interaction with their society can serve as a window into understanding that society.


I would agree with Meow Mix, you don't want to go overboard, but you also should not shy away from appropriate inclusion of controversial aspects of historical figures.

[lastcallhall]

It seriously amazes me that you can say this. I assume with a straight face.

I have kept a straight face because I believe it

Do you *really* think that is going to be how it is introduced to your children?

No not at all, we talk about it in church and at home. I don't need a liberal teacher indoctrinating my child.

I would hope not. What you are wanting is to exclude anything remotely homosexual from social studies classes, which is a big part of our culture and recent history. If you want your child to grow up with your... viewpoint, I am sure you can manage to indoctrinate them after they get home just fine.

No i just don't want the school to talk about something that is not relevant to my child learning.

Because truth is not propaganda I am afraid.

I agree

Avoiding the exclusion of minorities from social studies classes is not propaganda. Firing public school teachers who make derogatory or bigoted remarks towards a minority group in front of children, also not propaganda. Maybe the word doesn't mean what you think it means?

It is propaganda, why else would you bring up someones sexuality? They want to show how normal it is and how acceptable a lifestyle it is. That is propaganda you say anything enough and people will believe it. The goal is the church, call me paranoid I don't care but that is my view.

As a hypothetical situation, let's say that an atheist teacher was trying to indoctrinate children with anti-Christian statements and specifically leaving out Christian elements from history. I would oppose that just as much as I oppose your present position.

That fine that you would oppose it but they already do that. I think evolution is wrong and I won't let my child listen to that, it is a liberal propaganda piece.

As Meow Mix points out, you are assuming it is going to be extraneous details. Roman/Greek practices? What about the Sodomy Laws? Oscar Wilde? The Gay Rights Movements that are such a big part of our recent cultural history and current events? Here, I even found a wiki article that summarizes the history in a time line form for your convenience. You are suggesting that not a single thing on that page should be discussed or introduced to children, even those that do not share your specific religious beliefs. And that our secular government should enforce this policy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_LGBT_history

Sure talk about them, don't pretend they don't exist but they go much further. They say that two mommies is just as good as a mother and father, they push the lifestyle as normal and acceptable and that is where I have an issue.

The law does two things.

One, it makes it so that books can't *exclude* homosexual issues (specifically). This does not mean that homosexual references will be added whenever humanely possible (like noting that some people think Lincoln was gay).

Two, government employees who's responsibility is instructing children cannot express any bigoted views they might have towards homosexuals. Even if they have such views.

The law does not say that they are going to lock your kids in a room with pins keeping their eyes open and force them to watch gay porn until they get a taste for it.

No it does not do that but it teaches that the lifestyle is acceptable and they will spread that message and force it into the church as well.