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?

[Autodidact]

So you can't find any problem with the methodology? Nothing but an ad hominem attack? Would it help if I gave you a lesson on the major common logical fallacies?


So lesbians cannot study lesbians without bias? What about heterosexuals, would they be inherently biased?

There you have it, no attack just did some research on the authors and found they are lesbian activists. Of course they will get the results they are looking for, do you think they would try to harm the cause of gay adoption? On this one you have to do better than say I am using fallacies.

So you don't have a problem with using fallacies? You know what "fallacy" means, right? It means you're wrong.

Many of the studies are not done by lesbians.

You have to focus on the methodology.

btw, are heterosexuals inherently biased in this area?

Still waiting for a single study that supports your position.

Remember, every study. Let me repeat that. EVERY STUDY EVER DONE supports my position. Are they all done by "lesbian activists?"

You're the activist here. You're an anti-lesbian activist. I prefer to focus on the positive, myself.

[Deadclown]

Lastcallhall, really, this is getting old. I feel like I am trying my best not to be condescending but these are things people should learn in High School.

'Bias' maybe doesn't mean what you think it means. I wouldn't care if some anti-homosexual fundamentalist Christian or Islamic (there's something you two can agree on) did actual empirical research on the subject assuming they had the appropriate education and it was *peer reviewed*. I'd be especially impressed if they reported results that ran counter to their beliefs. It means that they can put their feelings off to one side and look at the subject in an unbiased manner, or if they can't, it means that others in their field will point out the flaws in their methodology and reporting. Guess what though... people CAN and DO in fact perform research and scientific studies on subjects that they CARE about! A physicist who *believes* String Theory is true, and gets into heated arguments about it, can still publish papers on it. If he is dishonest or misleading he will get *caught* by his peers, and lose all professional credibility. He'll be working at Burger King.

What I do *not* accept is some opinion paper written by a guy with a Doctorate in 'Religion', working for a self professed anti-gay propaganda machine. Especially when his 'opinion' boils down to negative judgment of actual professionals operating within their fields and quote mining. His opinion is meaningless. Worse than that, it is downright dishonestly misleading. *If* he'd had an appropriate education, I'd take his criticisms of his (hypothetical) peers seriously. He doesn't. *If* he'd also done actual work himself then I'd likewise read it fully and search for the peer reviews of that work. He didn't.

You might believe anything that someone tells you as long as they are a fundamentalist Christian, but I am not so naive.

Guess what... lesbians can lie, Christians can lie, Jesus could have lied. The scientific method is in place specifically to cut down on that sort of thing so that we can get to the truth.

Maybe you just don't *get* it, lastcallhall, and I've been assuming that you do. Please, prove me wrong here. Can you explain to me the following in your own words?

1) The Scientific Method
2) Peer Review Process
3) Appeal to Authority. This last one is important. It's the one that makes it so that appealing to the opinions of people who are not professionals speaking about their specialty is just wrong.

[Autodidact]

Deadclown: lastcallhall rejects science and the scientific method. For that reason, we lack a common ground on which to meet in our search for truth.

I don't know what he relies on for medical care, or where he thinks his computer came from.

[Deadclown]

Deadclown: lastcallhall rejects science and the scientific method. For that reason, we lack a common ground on which to meet in our search for truth.

I don't know what he relies on for medical care, or where he thinks his computer came from.

I just can't begin to understand that mind set. Even when I was religious, science was science and religion was religion. It is not like they need to compete with each other. Religion just keeps seeming to try and pick fights for no good reason.

Lastcallhall, as Autodidact points out, the scientific method has a proven track record of success. Every bit of modern technology is founded on it. The modern world is built on it. I assume you are not a Luddite or Amish since we are communicating online?

The scientific method does not discriminate. It has no agenda. It is self correcting, self policing, and has done more for the human race than (arguably) anything else in our entire history. People who think that common sense, personal opinion, or unevidenced belief is superior to it are clearly wrong, and I must only point at the last two centuries in comparison to the last two thousand years (particularly in Europe) to prove this.

You cannot say that the scientific method works in one area (that is convenient for you or non-conflicting with your belief system) and then turn around and deny it's effectiveness in another area (that is inconvenient for you). Actually, I suppose You *can*, it is just very hypocritical.

[Goat]

In fact, it says nothing about the subject at all. It doesn't prohibit lesbianism at all.

Nonsense.

Romans 1:24-27 ESV
Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

No prohibition there; it's a narrative, not a prohibition. It's not like God doesn't know how to prohibit things. Divorce and remarriage, for example, that's strictly prohibited. Yet you never see Evangelical Christians campaigning against step-parents. Could it be because so many of them are divorced?

So, East, can you help lastcall out? Got any studies that show that children of two moms do worse on any objective measure than children of moms and dads?

I will point out that in the narrative, the behavior that is 'contarary to nature' is not defined, and it has to be assumed by the reader to mean same gender sexual relationships.

Another issue is that passage is being quoted in isolation. It is not taking into account the entire letter, and the cultural reference in which the letter was written. One item have noted before is that many evangelistic Christians weave together unrelated passages out of context to justify their predetermined theological bent.

[East of Eden]

In fact, it says nothing about the subject at all. It doesn't prohibit lesbianism at all.

Nonsense.

Romans 1:24-27 ESV
Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

No prohibition there; it's a narrative, not a prohibition. It's not like God doesn't know how to prohibit things. Divorce and remarriage, for example, that's strictly prohibited. Yet you never see Evangelical Christians campaigning against step-parents. Could it be because so many of them are divorced?

So, East, can you help lastcall out? Got any studies that show that children of two moms do worse on any objective measure than children of moms and dads?

I will point out that in the narrative, the behavior that is 'contarary to nature' is not defined, and it has to be assumed by the reader to mean same gender sexual relationships.

Another issue is that passage is being quoted in isolation. It is not taking into account the entire letter, and the cultural reference in which the letter was written. One item have noted before is that many evangelistic Christians weave together unrelated passages out of context to justify their predetermined theological bent.

Look at it in the context of the entire Bible, homosexual activity is condemned throughout. Male homosexual activity much more frequently, but do you really think God condemns it in males but not females?

[Autodidact]

In fact, it says nothing about the subject at all. It doesn't prohibit lesbianism at all.

Nonsense.

Romans 1:24-27 ESV
Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

No prohibition there; it's a narrative, not a prohibition. It's not like God doesn't know how to prohibit things. Divorce and remarriage, for example, that's strictly prohibited. Yet you never see Evangelical Christians campaigning against step-parents. Could it be because so many of them are divorced?

So, East, can you help lastcall out? Got any studies that show that children of two moms do worse on any objective measure than children of moms and dads?

I will point out that in the narrative, the behavior that is 'contarary to nature' is not defined, and it has to be assumed by the reader to mean same gender sexual relationships.

Another issue is that passage is being quoted in isolation. It is not taking into account the entire letter, and the cultural reference in which the letter was written. One item have noted before is that many evangelistic Christians weave together unrelated passages out of context to justify their predetermined theological bent.

Look at it in the context of the entire Bible, homosexual activity is condemned throughout. Male homosexual activity much more frequently, but do you really think God condemns it in males but not females?

Look at it in the context of the entire Bible--this is the only mention of lesbianism or female homosexuality whatsoever. It is never prohibited, nowhere in the thousands of pages containing hundreds of prohibitions.

I really think God doesn't exist, and men wrote the whole thing. However, the fictional character of YHWH described in the Bible clearly has no problem with female homosexuality. My guess is that it's beneath His notice, since it only concerns women.

Furthermore, many modern scholars don't think even male homosexuality is condemned. There are serious translation problems there.

Surely you're not claiming that God views men and women equally?

[Deadclown]

Look at it in the context of the entire Bible, homosexual activity is condemned throughout. Male homosexual activity much more frequently, but do you really think God condemns it in males but not females?

Furthermore, many modern scholars don't think even male homosexuality is condemned. There are serious translation problems there.

I have seen things similar to this... that God frowned on anal sex (sodomy), not so much general homosexuality. After all, a man can have anal sex with a woman, two women can engage in it with sex toys, and two homosexual men can engage in sexual activities without sodomy (oral sex for example).

I suppose better questions are, why do *you* think God condemns it in anyone? Why did he condemn people who ate shellfish or didn't keep sacred the Sabbath? Why would he condemn it at all? Why do you condemn it more than you do people who like shrimp?

Maybe he just has it out for homosexuals for his 'inscrutable reasons'. Maybe he had a bad buggery experience (Baal caught him in a dark alley and he doesn't like to discuss it). Maybe him and Lucifer had a... falling out, once upon a time. That'd certainly explain all the bad blood between them.

[East of Eden]

In fact, it says nothing about the subject at all. It doesn't prohibit lesbianism at all.

Nonsense.

Romans 1:24-27 ESV
Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

No prohibition there; it's a narrative, not a prohibition. It's not like God doesn't know how to prohibit things. Divorce and remarriage, for example, that's strictly prohibited. Yet you never see Evangelical Christians campaigning against step-parents. Could it be because so many of them are divorced?

So, East, can you help lastcall out? Got any studies that show that children of two moms do worse on any objective measure than children of moms and dads?

I will point out that in the narrative, the behavior that is 'contarary to nature' is not defined, and it has to be assumed by the reader to mean same gender sexual relationships.

Another issue is that passage is being quoted in isolation. It is not taking into account the entire letter, and the cultural reference in which the letter was written. One item have noted before is that many evangelistic Christians weave together unrelated passages out of context to justify their predetermined theological bent.

Look at it in the context of the entire Bible, homosexual activity is condemned throughout. Male homosexual activity much more frequently, but do you really think God condemns it in males but not females?

Look at it in the context of the entire Bible--this is the only mention of lesbianism or female homosexuality whatsoever.

How many do you need?

I really think God doesn't exist, and men wrote the whole thing. However, the fictional character of YHWH described in the Bible clearly has no problem with female homosexuality.

I already listed a verse where God has a problem with it.

Furthermore, many modern scholars don't think even male homosexuality is condemned.

I know, I have no idea how they could be confused on that issue.

Surely you're not claiming that God views men and women equally?

Yes, you're confusing the different roles men and women have with inequality. He expects women to hold to the same standard men should when it comes to sexuality, i.e., it is between a man and woman in a married relationship.

[East of Eden]

I suppose better questions are, why do *you* think God condemns it in anyone? Why did he condemn people who ate shellfish or didn't keep sacred the Sabbath? Why would he condemn it at all? Why do you condemn it more than you do people who like shrimp?

As the church has taught for 2,000 years, the OT Jewish dietary and ceremonial laws don't apply to Christians under the New Covenant. See Galatians. Homosexual activity is prohibited in both testaments.