The Gay agenda

lastcallhall · Post by **lastcallhall** » Tue May 24, 2011 7:46 pm

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 · Post by **lastcallhall** » Fri Jul 01, 2011 9:48 pm

This is a topic for debate from Slopeshoulder and called hate speech, I watched the video and I thought it was a fantastic video and a clear Biblical teaching on homosexuality. This is a fundamentalist christian view and on this site now is trying to be considered "hate speech". This is where I see the country going and christians will be stopped from preaching against the homosexual lifestyle.

In this thread...
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... sc&start=0
...the member EastofEden posted a link to a video that some consider hate speech (and may actually be hate speech). It was presented as an endorsed POV by this member. In other threads he has recently posted links to sites peddling spurious research that is hate-based.

This raises the issue of whether posting links to hate sites and hate videos when endorsed as content/evidence in debate is tantamount to hate speech by proxy and therefore to be considered a rule violation.

I vote yes.

Or perhaps it is covered by the current "offensive material" rule?

Whether it is hate against jews, blacks, women, gays or other marignalized groups, it's all NOT OK. (Yes, there are non-hateful arguments against the moral standing and rights of these groups that, while they offend conscience and reason, are not hate speech proper. I'm talking about that which is).

I suggest vigorous enforcement of the "offensive material" rule, or creating a new rule against "hate by proxy" to apply in these circumstances

I don't want to take away from his thread but I think just raising the question prooves my point.

lastcallhall · Post by **lastcallhall** » Wed Jul 06, 2011 7:50 am

More of the homosexual agenda being pushed on people if the accept it or not. If this bill is signed and you disagree you will have to pay to have your children go to a private church school(for as long as they are allowed to speak against the homosexual lifestyle)

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/07 ... latestnews

Deadclown · Post by **Deadclown** » Wed Jul 06, 2011 8:00 am

lastcallhall wrote:More of the homosexual agenda being pushed on people if the accept it or not. If this bill is signed and you disagree you will have to pay to have your children go to a private church school(for as long as they are allowed to speak against the homosexual lifestyle)

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/07 ... latestnews

From lastcallhall's Article wrote: California lawmakers on Tuesday sent the governor a bill that would make the state the first requiring public schools to include the contributions of gays and lesbians in social studies curriculum.

The bill, passed on a party-line vote, adds lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people as well as people with disabilities to the list of groups that schools must include in the lessons. It also would prohibit material that reflects adversely on gays.

So essentially, 'the gays' (democrats actually, darn that gay conspiracy) are insisting that the culture not be specifically excluded from social studies curriculums by public schools and that there isn't bigoted statements made in PUBLIC schools by the teachers towards minorities.

Oh noes. You have to go to a private school to get a teacher who hates gays appropriately and chooses to revise history in order to exclude them. So that your children don't 'get the gay'.

Seriously, while we are at it, we should include African Americans in the social studies curriculum and make it so teachers can't make bigoted statements about black people.

Oh wait.

Clownboat · Post by **Clownboat** » Wed Jul 06, 2011 8:32 am

lastcallhall wrote:More of the homosexual agenda being pushed on people if the accept it or not. If this bill is signed and you disagree you will have to pay to have your children go to a private church school(for as long as they are allowed to speak against the homosexual lifestyle)

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/07 ... latestnews

(From the web site)....well-intentioned but ill-conceived bill and raised concerns that it would indoctrinate children to accept homosexuality.

Are you suggesting we indoctrinate our children to abhor homosexuality?

lastcallhall · Post by **lastcallhall** » Wed Jul 06, 2011 8:39 am

So essentially, 'the gays' (democrats actually, darn that gay conspiracy) are insisting that the culture not be specifically excluded from social studies curriculums by public schools and that there isn't bigoted statements made in PUBLIC schools by the teachers towards minorities.

It is not bigoted, I just don't want my children taught a lifestyle is acceptable that is not considered acceptable by God. I think the article I posted as well as the thread by Slope shows there is a movement to stop christians from preaching against the homosexual lifestyle.

Oh noes. You have to go to a private school to get a teacher who hates gays appropriately and chooses to revise history in order to exclude them. So that your children don't 'get the gay'.

I hate nobody

Seriously, while we are at it, we should include African Americans in the social studies curriculum and make it so teachers can't make bigoted statements about black people.

Oh wait.

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.

lastcallhall · Post by **lastcallhall** » Wed Jul 06, 2011 8:41 am

Are you suggesting we indoctrinate our children to abhor homosexuality?

No, just that the lifestyle is a sin. Not to hate anybody but 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.

McCulloch · Post by **McCulloch** » Wed Jul 06, 2011 8:49 am

A 19th century Christian may have wrote: It is not bigoted, I just don't want my children taught a lifestyle is acceptable that is not considered acceptable by God. I think that there is a movement to stop Christians from preaching against miscegenation.

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.

No, just that the lifestyle is a sin. Not to hate anybody but I don't need my kids being taught that mixed race parents is just as acceptable as a mother and father that fear and follow the Lord.

I don't see the difference. Do you see the difference?

Deadclown · Post by **Deadclown** » Wed Jul 06, 2011 9:05 am

lastcallhall wrote: It is not bigoted, I just don't want my children taught a lifestyle is acceptable that is not considered acceptable by God. I think the article I posted as well as the thread by Slope shows there is a movement to stop christians from preaching against the homosexual lifestyle.

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.

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. 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 hate nobody

Didn't say that you did? Just that the teachers who work for the government can't express any hateful or discriminatory statements towards a minority group in front of children that they are educating. The fact that this wasn't already a rule, shocks me.

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.

How about you stop putting words in my mouth? I didn't say you 'hated' anyone. Public schools and the government should protect minorities. Excluding a minority from history because you don't approve of their lifestyle is you forcing *your* views on others.

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

No, just that the lifestyle is a sin. Not to hate anybody but 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.

Too bad.

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.

SailingCyclops · Post by **SailingCyclops** » Wed Jul 06, 2011 9:36 am

lastcallhall wrote:More of the homosexual agenda being pushed on people ....

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

"This bill will require California schools to present a more accurate and nuanced view of American history in our social science curriculum by recognizing the accomplishments of groups that are not often recognized,"

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? 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?

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

SailingCyclops · Post by **SailingCyclops** » Wed Jul 06, 2011 11:15 am

lastcallhall wrote:I just don't want my children taught a lifestyle is acceptable that is not considered acceptable by God.

Teaching historical events, and banning bigoted speech in publicly funded schools is far from teaching a lifestyle. Censoring historical events, and allowing bigoted speech in the classroom, IS teaching a lifestyle of intolerance. You seem to want to do the very thing you claim you don't want to do; impose your values, your lifestyle, on everyone else. That's very un-American, and goes contrary to what this country stands for; equality and justice for all (that would include you).

lastcallhall wrote:I don't care what people choose to do in private but the goal is to force the lifestyle on everyone

History is what people have done in public. Achievements of human rights, the fight against discrimination, the struggle for equality, are all PUBLIC actions of historical import, and have nothing to do with forcing a lifestyle on anyone. How can you possibly equate the two? Please explain.

lastcallhall wrote:just that the lifestyle is a sin.

In your religious opinion it is a sin. Not everyone believes as you do. What gives you the right to bend and censor history to further your personal religious views? Don't you realize that we live in a secular democracy and not in a theocracy? Please tell us what gives you the right to force your "lifestyle" on others? Nothing in this bill takes away your right to believe what you want, or to raise your children as you see fit, why are you so inclined to deny others the same rights you have? Only the Taliban thinks, legislates, and acts as you would have us do. Would you like to see [strike]Sharia[/strike]Christian law imposed on the country? It certainly sounds like you would. What an absolute horror!

Bob