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?

[lastcallhall]

Whatever the purpose, you have not provided a sound reason for rejecting my analogy. I just suggest that even if you yourself admit it is offensive, you stop using it altogether - it will get you nowhere in civil debate. Your vision of God seems to be offending God himself, something's wrong there, and I fear it's not the logic.

It is not insult what makes people reflect. It's a message given through thoughtful responses composed of well-supported arguments and evidence.

I agree and if you look through every post I have ever had on here I have never called anyone a foll nor pulled up that verse of scripture until now. Deadclown brought it up and I was showing the verse AND the verse why I won't use it. I apologize if I have offended anyone.

With what they believe no; and neither are you. However, you cannot modify what the Bible says. Neither can I. It's not my fault that book is the way it is. That's one of the reasons I'd never use it as a moral compass.

Thank you and I agree that you can't modify what it says but you do need to dig into some verses to see what is really being said and I feel that is one of them.

Well again, we keep messing up our everyday definitions of marriage with the Biblical one. According to Jesus or whoever, the first marriage was the only valid one - but I don't want to argue this, I could not be less interested in what the Bible said. It does not affect me.

I respect that you do not use the Bible for anything but I think I have shown how the first marriage can be wiped away by God. Jesus is talking and, in my view, saying it is adultery if you never confess the divorce as sin.

I missed the Biblical verse about grace that did a numerical comparison.

I agree just using an analogy, might have been a bad one.

A double standard is when you use the book for some parts and your own socio-cultural view (from tradition) for others. It seems to fit here.

I don't think so, at least understand I would never want to tell someone something that is against the Bible. I would never want to be responsible for sending anyone to hell, in any small or large way by giving them wrong info.

It looks more like indoctrinating them with an agenda before they get to deal with views not based on superstitious thinking. But do with them whatever you want.

Fair enough but I think salvation is the most inportant thing this is why I do what I do.

I don't speak from the parent's side. I spoke from the child's side. And I give you my own experience. I went to a school were I was taught Christianity and all their myths as truths.

In my view, a proper public education is that in which you are taught the reality about all religions. Some people seem to fear this, and that's very suspicious.

My point is would you want your kid to be taught by a preacher everyday? My guess is no, this is my problem with the new law in CA.

[McCulloch]

The one thing you do not backup is the one thing that you need to. Why is it that you consider the Bible a valid source of truth?

I trust the Bible for my salvation so it is not a stretch to trust it for other things in life. I trust it because to me the prophecies about Jesus are on spot hundreds of years before he was born. It is written by many people over many years with a pretty consistent message. Sorry if I was preachy.

Not at all. I asked why you would accept the Bible unquestioningly and you answered. I believe that we have reached the heart of our disagreements. This is more of an Apologetics issue than a political one, your politics, like mine, flow from what you believe to be true about life, the universe and everything. So, if it is all the same to you, we should move this discussion into the Apologetics forum.

The Bible as a source of Truth

[Autodidact]

Maybe you do not understand the essential essence of debate, but your feelings again, count for nothing. You are offering opinions that are unsupported statements that infringe upon the rights of a minority group. You vote in the direction of restricting the rights of that group with woefully poor justification

.

All your opinion, first I have all the proof I need for anything in the Bible. Many have called me an oppressor so go ahead you can too. It is odd that the NO state has voted for gay marriage, must be a ton of oppressors?

1. Again you are factually mistaken. The New York state legislature just approved same-sex marriage.
2. Not that it matters. The Southern United States unanimously approved slavery, and then segregation, and it was oppression.

You are therefore oppressing them. Argue against my logic or just go ahead and cop to it. Everyone who reads what you write I am sure has already figured you out.

I don't hide who I am, a bible believing christian. I am a fundamentalist and make no apologies for it at all. Sorry if my logic, thinking, or comments offend you or you think I'm ignorant but honestly I could care less.

Ignorance is one thing; deliberate ignorance another. We are all ignorant of many things; the question is, do you choose to remain ignorant, or do you attempt to remedy it?

If you want to think that gays are 'bad', go right ahead. Just keep your bigoted poorly supported opinions to yourself and out of my secular government.

And keep your secular humanist views away from my kids

If you agree to keep your superstitious ones away from mine, we have a deal. By the way, the name for that deal is secularism.

I'd expect any high school graduate to at least make an attempt to educate you on your obvious misunderstandings of the basic level essentials of biology when confronted with your obvious glaring misunderstandings. Your bible quote called me a 'fool'. At least have the gumption to admit to insults you directed at me. Perhaps you need to just keep them all backhanded so that you can feel morally superior?

First I hide nothing nor to I not say what I mean, yes the Bible calls you a fool.

Psalm 14:1
New King James Version (NKJV)


Psalm 14
"To the Chief Musician. A Psalm of David.
1 The fool has said in his heart,
There is no God.
They are corrupt,
They have done abominable works,
There is none who does good.


But I will let God say that because I also believe this verse.
Matthew 5:22
New King James Version (NKJV)

22 But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause[a] shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, Raca! shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, You fool! shall be in danger of hell fire.

So you see I am not being dishonest, I did not call you a fool, God does but I didn't.

You see, the difference between my position, and yours, is I am able to base mine on evidence. You base yours on irrationality, bible interpretations, and the opinions of people who (shocker) already believe exactly as you do.

Why does it bother you where I get my proof from? Because I have read many articles from the highly educated and reject them? You see the scientists and Ivy league educators as infallible and I see them as men with an opinion and an agenda.

So basically you're opposed to a scientific world view?

Have you ever heard the tale of the Emperor with no Clothes? Your position is like that, except instead of being naked, you simply have no rational basis for your slanderous opinions. I am the guy telling you that you're naked when in your day to day life nobody else does.

Yes I have and you are the one who can't see that you are naked. If you have rejected Jesus, you reject truth.

Can you make an argument for your position, rather than a mere assertion? If not, you're preaching. Is that allowed in forum rules?

The desire I guess, live the lifestyle no. They would have to totally break away from me and my wife, my parents, the church to live a sinful lifestyle. I would not let my daughter live in open adultery to her husband either. You DO NOT flaunt a sinful lifestyle around me.

This demonstrates the potential harm of your views; this would be very painful to all of you, and is completely unnecessary.

Start a thread man and I will be there, you can call me ignorant there too

O.K., so you're interested in a thread to discuss whether the theory of evolution is correct or not? Sorry, I'm a newbie here, where should I start it, in Science and Religion, or somewhere else?

[Ragna]

I agree and if you look through every post I have ever had on here I have never called anyone a foll nor pulled up that verse of scripture until now. Deadclown brought it up and I was showing the verse AND the verse why I won't use it. I apologize if I have offended anyone.

I'm not offended because the Bible's message is not important to me. I just wanted to point that out, sorry if you have not brought it up. However, I'd still like to see your logical response to the apparent implication of God calling Himself a fool.

Thank you and I agree that you can't modify what it says but you do need to dig into some verses to see what is really being said and I feel that is one of them.

Then that one about "whoever ... hellfire" will be another, I suspect.

I respect that you do not use the Bible for anything but I think I have shown how the first marriage can be wiped away by God. Jesus is talking and, in my view, saying it is adultery if you never confess the divorce as sin.

[...]

I agree just using an analogy, might have been a bad one.

[...]

I don't think so, at least understand I would never want to tell someone something that is against the Bible. I would never want to be responsible for sending anyone to hell, in any small or large way by giving them wrong info.

Very well, I understand how you feel. I see no use in continuing discussing adultery. There's a thread for that already, and I feel most of what needed to be said has been already.

My point is would you want your kid to be taught by a preacher everyday? My guess is no, this is my problem with the new law in CA.

No, of course not. That's what I'm saying to you. I have been that kid, and I have been preached Christian education without any knowledge of what really is going on in the world. I find that unfair.

[Autodidact]

Again, OT of this thread. You have no idea what the Theory of Evolution is. None. Until you understand what it is, do you think it's wise to reject it? How can you reject if if you don't know what it is?

Like I have told Deadclown start a thread and I will join in

Again, this is not based in fact. There are many Gay people who were raised in homes just like yours.

Sure but it is still sin

You are perfectly entitled to believe this and live by it. You have no right to impose your religious belief system on anyone else.

This is what I mean by slandering people. Atheists don't hate God; we don't believe there is any such thing. Wouldn't it be silly of me to hate something that doesn't exist?

Maybe you don't, some do hate God

If they do, then they're not Atheists, are they? I don't know if you're words are intentional or just careless, but you are making false statements about other people. Is that a sin?

[Autodidact]

It is not my opinion, it is the rules of debate as to be used in the debate subforums. You are essentially doing nothing more than preaching, and it is obvious. You are acting in an oppressive manner. Also, I don't even see what the point here is. Are you trying to say equal rights for a minority group is oppression? Probably. I'd assume you mean that it somehow infringes on your religious beliefs somehow?

It is your opinion that I am an oppressor is my point. You trot it out as fact but if you are honest it is an opinion. Tens of thousands of christians would agree with me and I am sure you can get many people to agree with you, it's all perspective.

It doesn't matter how many people collude in it; oppression is oppression. I'm sure you can think of many historical instances in which majorities oppressed and even annihilated minorities, or do you need reminding?

You are engaging in a simple fallacy, the fallacy ad populum. Are you familiar with logical fallacies?http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/If not, you might want to take a minute to learn about them; it will make your debate more effective. Please note that logic is not a secular conspiracy; it is a nuetral means to reason about any subject.

Look, lastcallhall, I don't care what you are. I don't care if you sing your views from the rooftop or go on national television to spout bigoted unevidenced opinions. However, this is a *debate* forum. Here you are forced to back up your words. You seemingly *cannot*, and you as much as admit it.

I backup everything I say, if you don't like my use of the Bible I would suggest we stop debating. I do not jump into many debates on this site that don't allow use of the Bible because that is my source for info. If you wish to stop the debate that is ok by me.

Yes, if the Bible is your only source, you may as well give up now, as you have already lost the debate.

If you think I am hateful and bigoted, fine but please do not assume I have no thought out my opinion. You discount what I use for truth, fine but I may discount what you use for truth.

You discount science?

You just miss one of our big differences, I don't see any value in peer reviewed work if they are not done by people that love the Lord. For some things fine, but for things like evolution they have a bend and I don't care for it.

(emphasis added) So just to clarify, you reject science and the scientific method? Just want to make sure I understand you. If your interpretation of the Bible says the earth is flat, and science says it's round, you're going with the Bible?

Your personal experiences are no justification for what amounts to hateful speech. Even if you do not say what you say with hate in your heart, the words themselves are very hateful. My mother taught me that if I have nothing good to say, I should say nothing at all.

So I should be silent on tough issues because it may offend people? Sorry I won't. Jesus said the world will hate me so I expect it.

Well, said, Rev. Phelps.

3) Evidence that homosexual couples are less capable parents than heterosexual couples.

You reject my sources and I am guessing you don't like Focus on The Family either

You have yet to present a single scientific article supporting your position. You are entitled to your opinion; you are not entitled to your own facts. Deliberately making up false facts and presenting them as if true is called lying. When those facts are slurs on innocent groups of people to which you do not belong, it's morally wrong. I would appreciate it if you would stop contributing to prejudice, bigotry and discrimination against me by spreading lies about a group to which I do belong. Thank you.

[Autodidact]

Well you guessed that I disagree, God is perfect and the word fool used in the Bible is a very offensive word. I believe that God is showing how much he wants you to know that he is there. I think it is meant to be offensive to get people to really think about a belief in God.

OK, just to clarify, you agree that your God is offensive, that citing Him in this instance is offensive, and that you have violated forum rules by being deliberately offensive; is that right?

[Autodidact]

I agree and if you look through every post I have ever had on here I have never called anyone a foll nor pulled up that verse of scripture until now. Deadclown brought it up and I was showing the verse AND the verse why I won't use it. I apologize if I have offended anyone.

I thought offending people was your goal? Isn't that God's goal, according to you?

With what they believe no; and neither are you. However, you cannot modify what the Bible says. Neither can I. It's not my fault that book is the way it is. That's one of the reasons I'd never use it as a moral compass.

Thank you and I agree that you can't modify what it says but you do need to dig into some verses to see what is really being said and I feel that is one of them.

Does that include the verses relating to homosexuality?

[Autodidact]

lastcallhall:

Have you found a single scientific survey to support your assertion that children do better with a mom and dad than they do with two moms? That would be a study that compares the two groups, don't you agree?

I can find you many, many studies that have shown exactly the opposite; just ask.

If you can, I will be happy to stand corrected. If you can't, will you stop spreading vicious lies about me? I would appreciate it.

Parenting is a difficult and important job. Thousands of lesbian parents work hard at it and do an excellent job, often with children born to heterosexuals who failed at it. We're willing to do it and find it rewarding. We're not willing for people to discredit our efforts. I would appreciate it if you would do the decent thing and stop. Thank you.

[Deadclown]

It is your opinion that I am an oppressor is my point. You trot it out as fact but if you are honest it is an opinion. Tens of thousands of christians would agree with me and I am sure you can get many people to agree with you, it's all perspective.

I will try to explain this to you one final time. When you say something that can be construed as hateful (without supporting evidence) you *must* provide good justification for your words. When you comment on making decisions and voting decisions on the basis of your hateful opinions (not that you are hateful, just the words that you express), then it is oppressive to the group who is being subjugated by these policy decisions.

It is not at all about the number of people who think one way or another. That is just an Appeal to Popularity (there's another one). It is simply logic. Take this for example.

If I say that all (purely for the sake of example, so I want to make clear I don't believe these things) Mexicans are lazy, the French are cowards, white people cannot sing or dance, or Christians not smart, these statements are hurtful attacks. If I can't back my words up, they are nothing more than hate speech directed at those groups. This is no different from you getting on a public forum and saying that homosexuals are worse parents than heterosexuals, or that liberals are engaged in a conspiracy to 'corrupt' American youth.

Please just try for a moment to put yourself in the other group's position. If you could *prove* the truth of your words with evidence and logic then it wouldn't be so needlessly hurtful.

I backup everything I say, if you don't like my use of the Bible I would suggest we stop debating. I do not jump into many debates on this site that don't allow use of the Bible because that is my source for info. If you wish to stop the debate that is ok by me.

You are correct that debates on this site do not allow you to use the Bible as your sole justification. Any more than I can quote from the FSM Bible, like it actually makes a point, or quote from Harry Potter to prove that magic exists. You need other supporting information. If you are unwilling or unable to provide it, then indeed, you should cease trying to debate the point with me here.

You are the one who brought up the fool line, go back through the thread and tell me where I spoke the word until you did. I was showing you the Bible verses and why I don't call people a fool. I'm sorry if you thought I did but I did not.

Oh come now. Please do not insult my intelligence. If I quoted some passage from anything at you that said Christians are fools, then you'd be insulted, and rightly so. Ragna says well why you are being uncivil.

You are spouting words that if unevidenced are hateful and bigoted. If you are fine with being hateful and bigoted, and wish to make that very clear to the readers, continue to speak your mind without rational backing.

If you think I am hateful and bigoted, fine but please do not assume I have no thought out my opinion. You discount what I use for truth, fine but I may discount what you use for truth.

I do not think you have not *thought* about your opinion a lot. I think you have not strongly represented it with evidence here in our debate. Since the opinion is hateful and there is a large minority of Americans that would be hurt or insulted by it (and people *here* who have openly expressed finding it distasteful), you should be required to justify it more in general. Since this is specifically a debate forum, you are in fact, required to do so.

Sorry I am not very smart. You must be a very patient guy to keep carrying me and trying to help me think correctly. It does not go unnoticed!

I think you are plenty smart, but you were in those situations (I fear) just getting swamped by the complexity of this debate we are having. I try to be patient, although I admit I have lost my patience here a few times, and have tried to apologize when I have clearly done so.

Again, I made the statement 'you are limiting your children's options for their future' and you challenged me. You admitted I was right but claim that you are now fine with them having limited options. Deal with it. Raise your kids however you choose, but I am right.

No you are not right but you are 100% correct that I will raise my children under the law of God and not your views.

Lastcallhall, I am only going to say this one more time. I *support* your right to raise your children as you see fit. I would never force you to raise them any other way through legal implementation or any other sort of pressure. However, I made the statement that you were limiting their options. Your reaction was to challenge me on it, and I explained in detail what I meant. Your reaction was to go, 'Yeah, so what?'. Which means you agree with me, you just don't care, and are not letting it influence your choices.

Right. So my original point was that they would hide it from you, if it happened, which would no doubt be extremely emotionally difficult because they love you. Would you prefer that they remain celibate and unfulfilled in an intimate manner to other human beings?

I prefer they go to heaven

I am going to put on my Christian hat for a second, since I was one for a long while even when I had similar views on the subject at hand.

Why can't they be happy and go to heaven too lastcallhall? We are *all* sinners, by your admition and definitions. We all sin with the full knowledge that we will sin in the future. It is through Jesus that your religion says that these sins are forgiven, because nobody is perfect. Jesus, if he was here today, would surely not reject people just because they feel attraction and love. Jesus often preached understanding and acceptance, with cautions that all sins are equal before God's eyes (except blasphemy of the holy spirit) and that since no one is without sin, no one should judge or throw stones because of the sins of others.

I would not break away totally but they would not be allowed to bring the "partner" into my home or to any family function. I would not allow any open sin to be around the rest of the family and I will not allow an open offense to God in my home. I will still love her but she would need to repent before there would be a full acceptance.

That is something, at least. I can easily imagine those who would have worse attitudes and am glad to hear that you would not disown your own child because of a sin.

I found it just for you

http://www.eagleforum.org/educate/2006/ ... islam.html

*Thank* you.

Now, I just want to point out to you that you trusted them implicitly. Despite the actual court case being counter to several of their claims. This is a news source that openly proclaims themselves to have a series of agendas, and when you get a bias of that level it can become tempting to twist the facts to suit their goals. Which it appears they tried to do. I would caution you for future debates that what you want is unbiased news reporting or at least several sources so that agreement can be gained.

Beyond that, there are a lot of clear warning signs in the article itself.
1) Biased language that is designed to manipulate emotional reactions of the readers.
2) No author is listed. If the writer remains anonymous, why?
3) No citations are included.

These are all strong indications that while you could use this as a starting point, it is not going to make for a strong argument on its own.

What is the question again than? Remember I am slow.

No, you are not. However, you might be a little on the unmotivated side. Since you could have just gone back and read what I wrote instead of forcing me to repeat myself.

Your original position then was that there was utterly no situation, ever, that a fetus should ever be aborted?

"I can't prove you are wrong, but you are wrong anyway." Your attitude does not bespeak a great level of maturity.

Thanks for taking the high road

I assume this is sarcasm? It is difficult to tell. When, instead of admitting that you have an inferior defense for your argument and conceding a point you instead go, "You are still wrong, but I can't prove it.", it does not reflect well on you. I am saying this in a hopefully instructive manner to call attention to your bad habits. Just because you say, "You make a superior argument, and I am unable to provide evidence in support of my point, so concede it.", does not mean that you think you are wrong, or even that you are wrong. It just means I made the better argument with better evidence and that you have the maturity to recognize this fact.

However the point still holds, that you show an inability to tell a good source from a bad one. A good source is one that is unbiased, cited thoroughly, and preferably one that originates from some peer reviewed source. A bad source is one that can be shown to come from a biased individual or organization (one pushing an agenda), one that is not well documented, or one that appears just online somewhere without any sort of peer review. The internet is a place where lots of people say all sorts of things. It is wise to approach things with a cynical attitude so that one doesn't get taken in.

You just miss one of our big differences, I don't see any value in peer reviewed work if they are not done by people that love the Lord. For some things fine, but for things like evolution they have a bend and I don't care for it.

You are first off assuming that they *don't* love your Lord. Many probably do. They just don't see the need to start off their research papers with, 'praise Jesus'. A person can be Christian and offer unbiased results and research. On top of that, you are entitled to your opinion, just realize that your attitude in that respect is going to lose you a lot of debates.

Your personal experiences are no justification for what amounts to hateful speech. Even if you do not say what you say with hate in your heart, the words themselves are very hateful. My mother taught me that if I have nothing good to say, I should say nothing at all.

So I should be silent on tough issues because it may offend people? Sorry I won't. Jesus said the world will hate me so I expect it.

You continue to play the martyr, which is very ironic. No one has ever expressed hate towards you. I do not hate you even a little. To be completely honest I think I mostly feel pity with a bit of frustration.

Lastcallhall, *you* are the one expressing hate. You are the one who is being offensive without justification. Everything I know about Jesus tells me that he would frown on you using his words as justification towards causing others harm, judging them, and treating them unfairly simply because they are 'sinners'. Are you without sin Lastcallhall, so as to throw the first stone? Do you wish to do unto them as you would have them do unto you? Are you God or Jesus and so empowered to make judgment on your fellow human beings?

Like when you tell me how to raise my kids?

I'd call this a strawman, because it is, but I think you earnestly misunderstood me. I would never tell you how to raise your kids. I made a statement that was challenged and ultimately agreed upon.

So that we are clear, the major ones are...
1) The new law in California is a liberal conspiracy that will lead to children being indoctrinated as part of a homosexual agenda.
2) Homosexual couples are not as 'fit' as heterosexual couples to raise children.

If I have any of this wrong, correct me please.

We are crystal clear, and in total agreement. Finally, thanks

Not at all. I simply wanted to make sure I could reiterate your view points so that my demands for evidence were clearly covering the main topics.

You have not yet adequately defended these view points with evidence. So you can officially retract your opinions (with apologies to homosexual readers) or you can provide good supporting evidence. This doesn't mean that you are admitting that you think you are wrong, only that you are unable to defend them to the expected rigors that this forum demands. If you refuse to do either of these things, then I will conclude this conversation with a declared victory. You need to provide evidence for the following...

1) Evidence of a liberal and gay conspiracy.

I have provided a few articles

You provided a single court case that initially was put in a biased and exaggerated context and regarded Islam and not homosexuality. Your only other article was written by a biased individual who's education is no where near sufficient to be judging psychological research done by those who are educated in the specialty fields. And even he admitted that there are many studies running counter to his point.

It takes far more than that to prove a *conspiracy*, lastcallhall. Let alone a liberal and/or homosexual conspiracy affecting everyone in the world. The reason you are probably having trouble finding unbiased supporting evidence, is because conspiracy theories are almost always utterly bogus.

2) Evidence that the implementation of the new law will lead to indoctrination of children.

I provided a CA Islamic article that shows clear indoctrination

You showed an article that demonstrated the dishonesty of the anonymous author. You showed a court case where an obviously excessive claim was *denied* by the court because there was legally nothing wrong with what occured. Even if we take it at face value, and 'assume' that there was Islamic indoctrination going on (which is a ridiculous conclusion from the evidence at hand) it in no way provides anything resembling evidence that the CA law will lead to homosexual indoctrination of children. There is no clear logical connection, and you haven't even tried to make one.

3) Evidence that homosexual couples are less capable parents than heterosexual couples.

You reject my sources and I am guessing you don't like Focus on The Family either

I reject any overly biased source where the speaker doesn't even have the education to conduct an appropriate psychological study, let alone judge those who do. As was pointed out by another, even you shouldn't trust Focus on the Family. I hope this realization helps you to see that you should *always* be cynical when reading another person's words. Don't just trust things on face value. People will lie. Even those who profess to be good Christian people (since that too can be a lie).

Autodidact, I would very much appreciate you providing the studies you reference, so that I can read them myself, and show why they are a) unbiased and b) written by competent professionals (I assume in both cases).

Lastcallhall, I forgive you for the whole 'fool' thing, but please take note of it in the future as being uncivil behavior.

However, I still demand evidence after pointing out why your present 'evidence' is both not strong and certainly not sufficient. If you do not wish to provide anything else, then I will accept your concession and an end to our exchange. I will not gloat or act in an untoward fashion, and indeed would gain a greater respect for you.