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]

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?

YOU said put it in context. The context is that this is the only mention. Did you want to retract your approach to put it in context?

If you claim it's prohibited, then you only need one; it just needs to be a prohibition.

If you claim that male homosexuality, then you need one from a part of the Bible that you also follow; unless your approach is hypocritical inconsistency.

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.

No, that's a story. A narrative. It requires individual interpretation. It says that God punished people by giving them unnatural desires. It says nothing about how God feels about lesbians, lesbian sex, lesbian marriage or lesbian parenting.

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.

Because of actually learning Koine Greek and Aramaic. Actually learning the ancient languages the Bible was written in seems to be the source of their confusion. To avoid confusion, just accept the translation that other experts have prepared, regardless of accuracy.

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.

I can't find that anywhere in the Bible. Maybe you can point to the passage where God makes men and women equal. I can find many that say the exact opposite. I also can't find a passage prohibiting same-sex marriage. Maybe we're not reading the same Bible.

[Autodidact]

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.

I'm so confused. The prohibitions in Leviticus don't apply...except when they do?

btw, What did Jesus teach on the subject?

[Deadclown]

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.

I'm so confused. The prohibitions in Leviticus don't apply...except when they do?

btw, What did Jesus teach on the subject?

I'm with her. Seems like people are happy to quote the Old Testament if it supports their point.

You also dodge the heck out of that question, EoE. The bible says a lot of stuff all throughout and I wasn't asking what the bible said. Don't feel like answering? I asked you why you think God would find sodomy (or homosexuality in general) so condemnation worthy?

Do you not really know and just accept it at face value... maybe because you find the idea distasteful yourself?

I hope you realize that there are a lot of Christians out there who do not feel the need to discriminate against homosexuals.

Jesus preached a lot about crazy ideas like forgiveness, treating others like you want to be treated, and not being the one to throw the first stone unless you are sinless yourself (a real alright dude that Jesus). You choose to ignore that aspect of the message and focus on the hatred.

Why?

[Autodidact]

Hey, for that matter, there are a lot of Christian homosexuals out there.

[micatala]

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.

No, it is not, not unless you ignore the context. Romans ch 1 for instance is discussing idolatry, and specifically people who intentionally reject God to worship images of created things. The letter is written to the Romans and Rome was a center of such activity. You have to make a LOT of assumptions to take such a passage as applying to homosexuality in general.

In addition, the Greek words some translate to refer to homosexuality are not standard words, and are ambiguous at best.

In addition, we have precedent in the Bible for setting aside teachings based on cultural circumstances. See Romans Ch. 14.


If you take what Paul writes as condemning homosexuality, then we should also not allow women to speak in church or cut their hair certian ways. We should also allow slavery.



And finally, none of this is relevant to the law of the land in a country that guarantees freedom of religion and has a First Amendment like ours.

[SailingCyclops]

Because other people, some of them policy-makers, might believe you and take actions that harm me and my family.

I doubt anyone of importance would care at all what I think

This is true, however your barbaric and bigoted views can infect real-world politics and policy makers. It's dangerous, and un-American. Here is a report on a recent expose on "reparative therapy" being conducted by Michelle Bachmann's company. She is running for president.

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

This is the very same nonsense that the Exodus folks perpetuate. A practice which has been discredited by EVERY scientific study EVER made.

While you may have your own opinions, you certainly may not have your own facts, and when those falsehoods begin affecting public policy, they need to be exposed as the bigoted lies they in fact are. This voodo-science is in fact hurting people, and causing deaths!

Bob

[SailingCyclops]

IMHO, someone openly flaunting the gay lifestyle is not a Christian. Someone with same-sex feelings who lives in accordance with God's will certainly can be.

It is a scientific fact that "same-sex feelings" IE Homosexuality, is a sexual orientation a person is born with. Every scientific study has shown this. In your paradigm, that would mean it was put there by god, and not by man[sic]. How can you condemn a person for being what god created?

How can you judge a person's religious beliefs? Doesn't your very own religion forbid you from judging?

What would you say to the United Methodist Church which published the following paper:

Reconciling Ministries and United Methodism

ABSTRACT.

We call for reconsideration of the General Conference legislation which, since 1972, has targeted homosexuality. We outline nine common misconceptions about homosexuality which have led the General Conference into three fundamental errors, resulting in its theological heresy, moral sin and denominational apostasy. We offer positions counter to those of the General Conference to provide theological grounding for our members, and to initiate church-wide discussion and dialogue. Our critique views the doctrines of Creation, Reconciliation and Redemption in the light of Jesus teaching, John Wesleys writing, and The Disciplines historic affirmations. We of the Reconciling Ministries Network in the Pacific Northwest Annual Conference adopted this as our official position March 17, 2001, and encourage reading and study by United Methodists across the conference and the denomination.

[...]

NINE MISCONCEPTIONS

Some of us as Christian disciples, heterosexuals and homosexuals alike, have chosen singleness.

Others of us seek to build the permanent stability of a Christian family. Together we reject any limitation of membership rights unique to homosexual persons, and affirm the recognition and acceptance of l/g/b/t/q persons, and of their/our personal and corporate commitments, as legitimate and welcome within The United Methodist Church, as well as society as a whole.

[...]

1. Some devoted Christians claim to be bound by every directive in the Bible, and therefore truly believe that the Bible condemns homosexuality as a sin for us today. We respectfully disagree. As New Testament Scholar Walter Wink points out, Many of the practices that the Bible prohibits, we allow, and many that it allows, we prohibit . Christians reserve the right to pick and choose which (biblical) sexual mores they will observe, though they seldom admit doing just that. And this is as true of evangelicals and fundamentalists as it is of liberals and mainliners. Wink concludes, Our moral task is to apply Jesus love ethic to whatever sexual mores are prevalent in a given culture, (and) to be critiqued by Jesus love commandment. Other New Testament scholars agree.

2. Prior to the 1880s, it was generally believed that all people were heterosexual by nature, and any homoerotic behavior was seen as aberrant and deliberately immoral. Today most authorities on human behavior and on morality understand same-gender attraction to be one variety of human love, fully as natural and potentially as moral as heterosexual attraction and behavior. We believe The United Methodist Church must, and eventually will, join other Christians in understanding Gods creation in this way.

3. Some Christians continue to claim that homosexuality is a personal choice, and thus that homosexuality itself is a sinfully rebellious personal decision. We disagree. In concert with most scientific consensus today, we understand homosexuality most often, although not always, to be an innate state of sexual orientation. It is no more often a choice than heterosexuality is a choice for the vast majority of heterosexuals.

4. Some well-meaning but misguided Christians point to a discredited method called Conversion Therapy or Reparative Therapy, which they claim can change any l/g/b/t/q persons into heterosexuals. Certainly those whom The Discipline calls former homosexuals, who try to change their behavior, should not experience coercion and marginalization. While no long-term studies have been conducted, some advocates do appear successful in altering their sexual behavior. But only a tiny portion of gay men or lesbians are willing to attempt such a change, even temporarily. For most who try, the method is ultimately unsuccessful; for many, it proves disastrously destructive. Since homosexuality is neither an illness nor an abnormality, but usually an innate condition, even the Roman Catholic Church has acknowledged it is not amenable to change.

5. Some believe it is only the expression of homosexual intimacy that is sinful. They condemn it, not only for single persons, but even within a monogamous lifetime commitment by Christians. Again, we respectfully disagree. We believe that ones sexual orientation is morally neutral, whether heterosexual or homosexual, in the words of the Social Principles, Gods good gift, which can be expressed in ways that may be either mutually fulfilling or destructive.

6. Traditional Christian disciplinarians tend to restrict all sexual activity to monogamous marriage of a man and a woman. This puts homosexual Christians in a double bind. They are prevented from marrying, then accused of promiscuity, and even blamed as a menace to traditional family values. It seems to be the cultures emphasis on the freedom of sexual pleasure for its own sake that is destabilizing family values. But most data point to heterosexual, not homosexual, behavior as the critical factor.

7. We believe that all Christians should be held to similar moral and ethical standards. But like our society, the General Conference has established a double standard" one for heterosexual couples, and a very different one for homosexuals. This is both unreasonable and unjust. We believe with Charles Hefling, that same-sex relationships (hold) the same potential for sacramental meaning and power as heterosexual relationships. As long as two homosexual persons are prohibited from marriage, their fidelity within a committed relationship should be welcomed and blessed by the church as positively as heterosexual fidelity within marriage.

8. We also recognize that there may always be some Christians who believe sincerely that homosexuality is sinful, and hold that their position is non-negotiable. That is their privilege, just as it is ours to come to a different conclusion. But United Methodists have a tradition of inclusiveness. We have the ability to disagree peaceably and lovingly on many issues. We believe that all of us can and should make our home in the same church, and that the conviction of one portion of our faith community should not be codified into a church law that discriminates against another equally committed portion.

9. It is often pointed out that our denomination might at first pay some price in loss of membership and income by welcoming l/g/b/t/q persons as full equals. We must point out that the church has experienced a tremendous, though largely silent and unacknowledged, loss of participation and donations of members who are themselves l/g/b/t/q, plus the loss of many of their families and advocates as well. The General Conference has clearly chosen which members it prefers to lose" a choice we believe is based on personal sentiment, political expediency and institutional protectionism, rather than theological reasoning and faithfulness to the gospel.

[...]

I have quoted their paper at some length because it directly deals with the very objections you and lastcallhall have raised with regards to this issue. However, this mainstream Christian church is dealing with it in a most Christian manner, without all the hate, intolerance, fear, prejudice and bigotry all too often expressed in this thread by so-called Christians.

I am not a Christian, but from what I have seen and read, these people are far more "Christian" than you are. They are following what anyone reading the New testament, would attribute to Christian values of tolerance, acceptance, understanding, and love.

It is interesting that you deny their faith, while at the same time they are fully accepting and understanding of yours. Who are the "true Christians" here? It does not appear to be you. Has your god appointed you judge and diviner of who is Christian and who is not? The hubris is thick, shameful, and quite appalling, even to this atheist!

Bob

[SailingCyclops]

The studies, IMO, have an obvious axe to grind. They are lesbians pushing an agenda.

For an authoritative presentation of medical, educational and social understanding of homosexuality, see Just the Facts about Sexual Orientation and Youth: a Primer for Principals, Educators and School Personnel, mailed to every school administrator and principal in the U. S. in 2000, published and endorsed by the following, with official statements from each:

American Academy of Pediatrics
American Association of School Administrators
American Counseling Association
American Federation of Teachers
American Psychological Association
American School Counselor Association
American School Health Association
Interfaith Alliance Foundation
National Association of School Psychologists
National Association of Secondary School Principals
National Association of SocialWorkers
National Education Association
School SocialWork Association of America

This is published by the APA, not by lesbians pushing an agenda! It is based on peer-reviewed scientific research. If you were courageous enough to read it, you would become educated about the facts concerning sexual orientation as opposed to the myths and disinformation you clearly labor under, and are oppressed by.

Bob

[micatala]

Here is another example of the "gay agenda."

http://www.newsnetnebraska.org/nnn/marr ... -nebraska/

Fentress wont talk about what happened next, but Smith said that when Fentress went to work the next morning, she wasnt congratulated on her marriage.

She was asked to resign.

The stories about the couple in the Lincoln Journal Star and elsewhere had upset some of the organizations donors, Smith said.

The couple isnt naming the nonprofit because Fentress signed a settlement, Smith said.

Fentress was given four months pay in her settlement, and she received unemployment pay for a while, Smith said. The couple started a table-making business and took side jobs when they could.

I would say not having to resign from your job simply because you wanted to get married is a rather legitimate "agenda" to have. I would say the fact that Fentress had to resign indicates unjustified prejudice still exists and needs to be combatted.

This couple certainly had, perhaps still has despite the settlement, even more reason to sue than the NM couple.



They were also unable to get Smith a new driver's license changing her name to Fentress.

http://journalstar.com/special-section/ ... 2de49.html

Down the page, there are some graphs and a map on demographics and states of residence for same-sex couples married in Iowa.


Here is a blog post from a person who seems likely to be the Fentress mentioned above.

http://www.reunion.com/sarahfentress/

About My School Life School was strange for me. Too much peer pressure among other things. As well, that time in my life was transitional in many ways. Thank God they are over, I did go to college though & decided to make something of myself. Again, Thank God!
Blog About My Work Life While I have finished college, I am waiting on my license to do drug/alcohol counseling & will more than likely stay in the current position I have only more in a counseling role. Now I do human services & provide services for homeless & working poor in Lincoln & surrounding communities.
Blog About My Personal Life Ive been in a relationship for 14 years. Have one child, a boy I named Noah that I was blessed to be able to adopt from birth almost 8 years ago. Own a home here in Lincoln & I cant complain. Life is good!

The discrimination is real and significant.

It is also unjustified.

That this couple should have to undergo these situations because some people think their notion of sin should drive what the law says is unconscienable. Those notions of sin should be restricted to the churches that believe in them, given there is no secular purpose for making them into law.

[GiddyUp]

IMHO, someone openly flaunting the gay lifestyle is not a Christian. Someone with same-sex feelings who lives in accordance with God's will certainly can be. The Bible says they will not inherit the Kingdom, and Jesus said His true followers are not those who say "Lord, lord...." but those who do His will.

Jesus said that not everyone who says "Lord, lord..." is his follower but those who do the things he taught, and he said this in relation to his sermon on the mount. Now do you practise the things Jesus taught then? Do you always turn the other cheek, give to everyone who wants to borrow from you, do you love your enemies? If there are things in the Sermon on the Mount that you do not follow in practise, then you are just one who says "Lord, lord...".

Also it is exactly there that Jesus said that anyone who marries a divorcee is living in adultery, and hence, in sin. how can a Christian want to prohibit homosexuals from raising children due their sinful lifestyle, but not prohibit the same for a married man and woman one of whom has had a divorce in the past? Christians often say that if a homosexual wants to live a non-sinful lifestyle then they must remain celibate, but I have never heard them say that if a divorcee wants to live a non-sinful life they must either rejoin the person they are married to in the eyes of God, or remain celibate. Why? They are living in open sin just as much as homosexuals are, and therefore just as harmful to children.

I think this is the essence of buffet-Christianity. One picks what one considers to be sinful lifestyles according to one's prejudices, and disregards the teachings of Jesus that would make being a Christian hard, but follow those of Paul's that make being a Christian easier.