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?

[Meow Mix]

You are not less free than I am because again I can't marry a man either. It is a bad argument.

What I don't understand about this is that your reasoning is very inconsistent. For instance, your reasoning for actively voting for oppression is that it's because you believe the Bible is against homosexuality -- so you decide that it's best to vote in such a way that homosexuals don't get to enjoy the same rights as straight couples because in your mind if you didn't then it's the same thing as standing against Jesus.

So, if a bill were ever introduced that disallowed people from practicing a religion other than Christianity, would you vote for that bill, too? By the same "reasoning" you use to oppress gay people it seems you should also oppress other religions if given the opportunity because according to Christianity idolatry and having other gods before the Abrahamic God is bad, right? So according to the same line of reasoning, you should feel compelled to vote against people being able to enjoy the same rights as Christians to worship -- am I right?

If I'm wrong, then why are you willing to "stand against Jesus" on one of the 10 Commandments by allowing other people equal religious rights, but you're content with engaging in oppression when it comes to homosexual equal rights?

If you believe that people should be able to worship whichever God they please in this country -- in other words, if you believe that it's not your job to step in and oppress them -- then why do you feel like it's your job to step in and oppress gays, since the line of reasoning you gave for doing so should apply to both scenarios? Why do you get to pick and choose like that?

On top of that, you never really answered the miscegenation laws question. You said:

It is a good point and the difference with not allowing a white person to marry a black person was do to purely personal hatreds and biases. I know that you feel this is the exact same thing but it is not and here is why. We are all God's children and we are all equal. There is no reason to not let someone ride a bus or eat at a cafe because of something they can't help. Homosexuality is called a sin in the Bible and is a lifestyle that you choose to live. I think the harm is not me saying that the harm comes by society accepting sin and calling it something other than sin. Being black is not a sin, practicing the homosexual lifestyle is and I have to take a stand even on tough issues.

We're not talking about riding on buses or eating at cafes, we're talking about marriage. Nobody can choose who they love, so if a black person and a white person falls in love, someone like you could have said back in the day, "Oh, I'm going to vote against that because I believe it's wrong." When they complain about your oppression, you might have said "But you have the same rights as I do -- I can't marry a black person either!"

Can you see how that isn't really equality? It's the same thing:

1) "Black people and white people shouldn't be able to marry. It's a choice that they make to love one another but I think it's wrong so I'll vote to oppress them. After all, we already have equal rights since I can't marry a black person either!"

2) "Gay people shouldn't be able to marry. It's a choice that they make to love one another but I think it's wrong so I'll vote to oppress them. After all, we already have equal rights since I can't marry the same sex either!"

The same bigoted "reasoning" is behind both of these. Both cause undue hardship and pain in people's lives -- people who love one another being told by someone else that they can't is about as hurtful as anything can be!

Worst of all, the hypocrisy is astounding: why agree with things like religious freedom (i.e., allow other people to worship what you might consider idols) and not allow civil equality? If you're worried Jesus will be mad about the latter, then why not the first?

I know I'll probably never be able to get you to see the ignorance and the hypocrisy behind your ideology here, but I think it's most important at this piont to get you to realize that it's easy to vote people's rights away when you don't have to look them in the eyes later. It's easy to say "no, you don't need to have these rights because I disagree with what you're doing with them," even though you're already doing that by allowing people to have the right to worship other gods than yours, when you're not the one who has to go to the funeral and tell the weeping non-widow that she will receive nothing of her dead lover's estate -- not even just the sentimental pictures or the record collection, because she's not recognized as the deceased's lover.

It's easy for you to vote away my rights because you don't have to see how it hurts me, in other words.

Well, again I doubt I can change your mind. But I just want you to know that your actions have real life consequences. Because of you and people like you, a lot of people are in pain; a pain that deals with matters of the heart and love -- the most vulnerable aspect of the human spirit. You are hurting people, and hurting them where it hurts most. I just think it's important that you understand that. I hope it's worth it to you.

[WinePusher]

I'm prepared to defend the position that churches SHOULD be forced to accept gay appointments and gay couples against their beliefs, although I do so in the knowledge that this will not happen and that on balance it probably shouldn't. However, by defending the position we can touch on the core argument a little more robustly.

Advocating some totalitarianist doctrines here EconAtheist ?

In a secular framework, which is what any sane government operates under no matter how religious its populace, we want to have social institutions and a society at large that is pluralistic, respectful and accommodating of difference. When powerful private organisations operate in ways that institutionalise and propagate the exact opposite, their actions have a cost on wider society in the sense that norms form a key role in defining how society works. By having norms that discrimate, churches impose their discrimination indirectly on society. In a society with strong churches, their is a strong argument for preventing discrimination.

This is flawed logic. In a free society, where an overwhelming majority of citizens deemed a particular action (or prohibition of an action) to be discriminatory or unjust, institutions that supported and participated in this unjust act would become irrelevant, they would fade into the dust. An institution is only as powerful as the amount of support it recieves, this includes Churches. The only reason why the Catholic Church is so influential or why Christian Churches in America are so influential is due to the fact that they have a large following of members who support their stances, beliefs and virtures. If the Churches advocated principles dissimilar to what their members believed, they would, as I previously said, become irrelevant. The need for government imposition comes about when a minority of people want some sort of change, however they don't have the support of the public, thus they must forcibely impose their will on the public in an unorthodox, undemocratic fashion. Gay Marriage is a great example of this. In a democratic system, policy creation is done when the public votes (either directly through a ballot election or indirectly through a legislature) and this vote becomes law. Every time the public has voted on this issue the Gay Agenda has been shot down beyond repair. Thus, the undemocratic liberal must come along and challenge the democratic will of the peopleby putting it to their Judicial Activist Judges stocked nicely within the Courts. Perhaps once the Gay Agenda Group gains some basic familiarity with how a Democracy works and begins to advance their agenda appropriately through the legislatures, they will begin to garner some supporters not exclusively found within Liberal Precincts.

Government has a responsibility to prevent socially harmful actions, from littering to discrimination.

I consider Gay Marriage to be Socially Harmful as well as Gay Adoption. There is nothing that makes your consideration of what is Socially Harmful superior to mine. The only thing is, the libs who disagree with conservative views on the Gay Lifestyle have no shame in calling the other side Bigots, Haters and Homophobes. This thread, even though it has only had an ephemeral existence, is indicative of that fact.

[Meow Mix]

The need for government imposition comes about when a minority of people want some sort of change, however they don't have the support of the public, thus they must forcibely impose their will on the public in an unorthodox, undemocratic fashion. Gay Marriage is a great example of this. In a democratic system, policy creation is done when the public votes (either directly through a ballot election or indirectly through a legislature) and this vote becomes law. Every time the public has voted on this issue the Gay Agenda has been shot down beyond repair. Thus, the undemocratic liberal must come along and challenge the democratic will of the peopleby putting it to their Judicial Activist Judges stocked nicely within the Courts. Perhaps once the Gay Agenda Group gains some basic familiarity with how a Democracy works and begins to advance their agenda appropriately through the legislatures, they will begin to garner some supporters not exclusively found within Liberal Precincts.

Do you recall or have you read about Brown vs. Board of Education?

Sometimes something is so inherently unequal and some of the general populace is so bigoted that it's necessary for the constitution and the American dream -- which constitutes civil equality for everybody -- to overstep them.

Somebody once said that "Pure democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner." If a population is bigoted enough, exactly this sort of thing can become a problem. It used to be the case with interracial marriage, it used to be the case with segregation, it used to be the case with women's suffrage, now it's the case with gay equality.

Thankfully, in this country at least, throughout history the bigots have always eventually lost. Gay equality will happen and just like we do today with those other things I mentioned people will look back and wonder what the big deal was. I can only hope that if Christianity or other religions start losing their popularity that they are never oppressed because I believe no one should be oppressed -- even if they half deserve it for oppressing others.

[WinePusher]

The need for government imposition comes about when a minority of people want some sort of change, however they don't have the support of the public, thus they must forcibely impose their will on the public in an unorthodox, undemocratic fashion. Gay Marriage is a great example of this. In a democratic system, policy creation is done when the public votes (either directly through a ballot election or indirectly through a legislature) and this vote becomes law. Every time the public has voted on this issue the Gay Agenda has been shot down beyond repair. Thus, the undemocratic liberal must come along and challenge the democratic will of the peopleby putting it to their Judicial Activist Judges stocked nicely within the Courts. Perhaps once the Gay Agenda Group gains some basic familiarity with how a Democracy works and begins to advance their agenda appropriately through the legislatures, they will begin to garner some supporters not exclusively found within Liberal Precincts.

Do you recall or have you read about Brown vs. Board of Education?

Yes, can you say the same? I have to assume that your knowledge of this case is finite if and only if you are attempting to refute my argument using Brown as an example. The decision within Brown v. Board of Education forced Public Schools to abolish institutional, de jure segregation. Public Schools are already under the jurisdiction of the Government, hence the title 'Public'. My statements were directed toward the undemocratic idea of the Government imposing a decision upon unwilling Private Sector institutions, not Public Sector institutions. The Government already well within it's means to regulate and control itself, so this legal allusion to an old High Court case is a Straw Man argument.

Sometimes something is so inherently unequal and some of the general populace is so bigoted that it's necessary for the constitution and the American dream -- which constitutes civil equality for everybody -- to overstep them.

The false equivalence here is blatant. Your see gays not being able to marry as synonymous or nearly synonymous with the inequality African Americans suffered prior to Civil Rights. Sensibility forces me to draw distinctions between the two and grasp the fact that the supposed plight gays supposedly face in America is no where near equivalent to lynchings, segregation and discrimination Blacks faced. The Gay Agenda and Argument is based on such falsehoods and deceptions, and until their platform begins to be just a little more intellectually honest I don't see the Gay Agenda moving anyway further in the future.

Somebody once said that "Pure democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner." If a population is bigoted enough, exactly this sort of thing can become a problem. It used to be the case with interracial marriage, it used to be the case with segregation, it used to be the case with women's suffrage, now it's the case with gay equality.

And that somebody is wrong. The idealistic form of government is a pure democracy as the people rule themselves. That the majority of the people rule from a stance that is to your disapproval is unfortunate for you and you alone. You are not some Objective Judge and Arbiter of what is and isn't bigotry, and what is and isn't socially just. Niether am I and nither is the precious government. The overall consensus of the people, as determined through robust debate and discussion, will determine for that current society in which they live what is just and unjust and what is tolerant and bigoted.

Thankfully, in this country at least, throughout history the bigots have always eventually lost. Gay equality will happen and just like we do today with those other things I mentioned people will look back and wonder what the big deal was. I can only hope that if Christianity or other religions start losing their popularity that they are never oppressed because I believe no one should be oppressed -- even if they half deserve it for oppressing others.

More attempts to draw false equivalence. This is why liberalism is dying at at high rate it is. People who claim to be adherants to this philosophy can't draw distinctions between, oh, lets see:

1) An innocent baby sleeping peacefully within it's mother's womb and a serial killer and rapist.
2) Shoving bamboo sticks up the finger nails of detainees or strapping electrodes to the naked skin their bare skin and creating the sensation of drowning under strict rules and regulations.
3) Blacks getting hung, beaten, discriminated by the state itself and gays who can't marry. Please, cry me a river, once the government says Gays aren't allowed to live or inhabit the same home as their partner then you guys can start the process of trying to hitch the gay agenda on the back of African American civil rights to gain some additional momentum.

[Meow Mix]

Yes, can you say the same? I have to assume that your knowledge of this case is finite if and only if you are attempting to refute my argument using Brown as an example. The decision within Brown v. Board of Education forced Public Schools to abolish institutional, de jure segregation. Public Schools are already under the jurisdiction of the Government, hence the title 'Public'. My statements were directed toward the undemocratic idea of the Government imposing a decision upon unwilling Private Sector institutions, not Public Sector institutions. The Government already well within it's means to regulate and control itself, so this legal allusion to an old High Court case is a Straw Man argument.

Isn't marriage a governmental institution? After all, you can get married with a quick stop to the courthouse. It seems that it is the government's business indeed to ensure that its citizens have equal marriage rights.

The false equivalence here is blatant. Your see gays not being able to marry as synonymous or nearly synonymous with the inequality African Americans suffered prior to Civil Rights. Sensibility forces me to draw distinctions between the two and grasp the fact that the supposed plight gays supposedly face in America is no where near equivalent to lynchings, segregation and discrimination Blacks faced. The Gay Agenda and Argument is based on such falsehoods and deceptions, and until their platform begins to be just a little more intellectually honest I don't see the Gay Agenda moving anyway further in the future.

You don't think gays are beaten, intimidated, fired, ostracized, sometimes killed? If so, then you're either incredibly naive or have selective empathy. That isn't even what this is about, though. This is about government sponsored inequality which must end.

And that somebody is wrong. The idealistic form of government is a pure democracy as the people rule themselves. That the majority of the people rule from a stance that is to your disapproval is unfortunate for you and you alone. You are not some Objective Judge and Arbiter of what is and isn't bigotry, and what is and isn't socially just. Niether am I and nither is the precious government. The overall consensus of the people, as determined through robust debate and discussion, will determine for that current society in which they live what is just and unjust and what is tolerant and bigoted.

Well, I disagree that pure democracy is the best government. The best democracy is one in which majority rules but in which the minority is protected. That's all we're asking for here. Otherwise indeed you just have a pack of wolves and a few lambs voting on what to have for dinner -- that isn't the American ideal; it's a massacre of rights.

More attempts to draw false equivalence. This is why liberalism is dying at at high rate it is. People who claim to be adherants to this philosophy can't draw distinctions between, oh, lets see:

1) An innocent baby sleeping peacefully within it's mother's womb and a serial killer and rapist.
2) Shoving bamboo sticks up the finger nails of detainees or strapping electrodes to the naked skin their bare skin and creating the sensation of drowning under strict rules and regulations.
3) Blacks getting hung, beaten, discriminated by the state itself and gays who can't marry. Please, cry me a river, once the government says Gays aren't allowed to live or inhabit the same home as their partner then you guys can start the process of trying to hitch the gay agenda on the back of African American civil rights to gain some additional momentum.

You can rail all you like, but I know how history will judge you and yours. Equality will happen for us and I will be glad on that day. Even after everything you've done against us, don't worry -- I'll remember your rights, and fight for them if they're ever imperiled. It's just too bad I couldn't have the same confidence in support from people with your ideology if my rights are in trouble. C'est la vie, I can't stoop to the level of a bigot just because I've been acted against.

[Wyvern]

The need for government imposition comes about when a minority of people want some sort of change, however they don't have the support of the public, thus they must forcibely impose their will on the public in an unorthodox, undemocratic fashion.

You mean like how the abortion foes target and sometimes kill the clinic doctors? That seems like a pretty unorthodox and undemocratic way to impose their will because they don't have the support of the public.

Every time the public has voted on this issue the Gay Agenda has been shot down beyond repair. Thus, the undemocratic liberal must come along and challenge the democratic will of the peopleby putting it to their Judicial Activist Judges stocked nicely within the Courts.

There's a number of states that have passed gay marriage so I'd say it is far from being beyond repair.

My statements were directed toward the undemocratic idea of the Government imposing a decision upon unwilling Private Sector institutions, not Public Sector institutions.

So you think the unofficial Jim Crow laws in the south were okay then?

The false equivalence here is blatant. Your see gays not being able to marry as synonymous or nearly synonymous with the inequality African Americans suffered prior to Civil Rights. Sensibility forces me to draw distinctions between the two and grasp the fact that the supposed plight gays supposedly face in America is no where near equivalent to lynchings, segregation and discrimination Blacks faced. The Gay Agenda and Argument is based on such falsehoods and deceptions, and until their platform begins to be just a little more intellectually honest I don't see the Gay Agenda moving anyway further in the future.

Actually prior to the civil rights movement both groups suffered similar treatment, the only protection gays had was that you couldn't tell who they were easily unlike blacks. If you were a known homosexual before the civil rights movement good luck getting a job and don't expect any police protection if a group decides they want to beat you up, half the time the police would join in.

The overall consensus of the people, as determined through robust debate and discussion, will determine for that current society in which they live what is just and unjust and what is tolerant and bigoted.

All this means is that it is the majority that will rule with no protections for any minority groups.

1) An innocent baby sleeping peacefully within it's mother's womb and a serial killer and rapist.

I'd say it's more like you conservatives seem incapable of making the distinction between a fetus developing in its mothers womb and a baby sleeping peacefully in its crib.

2) Shoving bamboo sticks up the finger nails of detainees or strapping electrodes to the naked skin their bare skin and creating the sensation of drowning under strict rules and regulations.

They are all forms of torture. Every time waterboarding has been used on americans it has been declared to be torture. During the Vietnam war waterboarding was used by our troops which the general in charge of that theatre of operations declared was torture and was no longer to be used. So now what has changed suddenly that makes it no longer to be torture?

3) Blacks getting hung, beaten, discriminated by the state itself and gays who can't marry. Please, cry me a river, once the government says Gays aren't allowed to live or inhabit the same home as their partner then you guys can start the process of trying to hitch the gay agenda on the back of African American civil rights to gain some additional momentum.

The idea of america is to give everyone equal rights. It was written into our very founding documents.

[WinePusher]

Isn't marriage a governmental institution? After all, you can get married with a quick stop to the courthouse. It seems that it is the government's business indeed to ensure that its citizens have equal marriage rights.

Civil Unions are a governmental institution. There is both a religious and governmental aspect to marriage. Marriage is a union between two consenting partners of the opposite sex with the intended purpose of creating new life.

The false equivalence here is blatant. Your see gays not being able to marry as synonymous or nearly synonymous with the inequality African Americans suffered prior to Civil Rights. Sensibility forces me to draw distinctions between the two and grasp the fact that the supposed plight gays supposedly face in America is no where near equivalent to lynchings, segregation and discrimination Blacks faced. The Gay Agenda and Argument is based on such falsehoods and deceptions, and until their platform begins to be just a little more intellectually honest I don't see the Gay Agenda moving anyway further in the future.

You don't think gays are beaten, intimidated, fired, ostracized, sometimes killed?

Not on a scale that African Americans were and not to the degree where the government actually sanctioned it. Did you miss that part of my post or what? Your side seems annoyingly persistent in trying to draw these insulting equivalences that, ultimately, denigrate the history of Racial Discrimination in America.

If so, then you're either incredibly naive or have selective empathy. That isn't even what this is about, though. This is about government sponsored inequality which must end.

I have to say that your conjectural, false dichotomy is unappealing to have to read, along with your absurd statement that the government sponsors gay beatings, intimidations, firing, and killings.

[Meow Mix]

Civil Unions are a governmental institution. There is both a religious and governmental aspect to marriage. Marriage is a union between two consenting partners of the opposite sex with the intended purpose of creating new life.

I don't care about the word "marriage." I care about having equal civil rights as heterosexual couples. There are heterosexual couples incapable of "creating new life" that have rights I'm denied with my lover. Why is that?

It can be called hoopity-hoppity for all I care as long as I'm equal.

I think you have a serious worldview distortion if you don't believe homosexuals have had a rough time through history -- just as much as racial minorities when open about it. The difference is that you can hide homosexuality and pretend to be heterosexual (at great cost to your quality of life) but you can't hide how much melanin you have in your skin -- so of course there are more affluent examples of racial minorities facing violence. That doesn't mean that there haven't been just as awful things that have happened to homosexuals, though.

Your indignation at my perceived trivialization of what racial minorities have gone through should be directed at your trivialization of what homosexuals have gone through and still go through, since we still aren't as free as you or even as racial minorities.

Again, I know how history will judge your ideology. You may not see that now, but I'd be willing to bet quite a lot that you'll see it happen in your lifetime. I'm confident that before the end you'll be wondering just like everyone else what the big deal was. Heterosexual marriage isn't under attack -- that's not what we're after. The sooner you stop demonizing us (sometimes literally!) and realize that we're just people who want federal recognition of whom we've chosen to live our lives loving so that we might have the same civil rights for that as you heterosexuals can currently enjoy, then the sooner we can move past all this hooplah and work together on issues together that will better this great nation.

Countless times in the history of this nation we've gotten past the discrimination and came out a better country for it. That's exactly what will happen again, and I'm glad for it!

PS, why is it that you're against Sharia Law but you seem to want to implement some sort of pseudo-Christian Law?

If a bill were in the works to ban the worshipping of idols, would you vote "yes" on that too, for instance? Or do you just single out homosexuals to oppress or something?

[lastcallhall]

You mean like how the abortion foes target and sometimes kill the clinic doctors? That seems like a pretty unorthodox and undemocratic way to impose their will because they don't have the support of the public.

I think this is a false claim, the people that blow up clinics are wrong. I am as pro life as a person comes and I must stand by the Bible that says vengeance is God's and he will be the judge. I know that I will fight for life and to get laws changed but never harm someone even if I consider them murderers. This thread has been about fair rights what about the unborns rights? The public seems to be behind the pro life movement as laws are changing. (not to get too far off topic)

[lastcallhall]

I think you have a serious worldview distortion if you don't believe homosexuals have had a rough time through history -- just as much as racial minorities when open about it. The difference is that you can hide homosexuality and pretend to be heterosexual (at great cost to your quality of life) but you can't hide how much melanin you have in your skin -- so of course there are more affluent examples of racial minorities facing violence. That doesn't mean that there haven't been just as awful things that have happened to homosexuals, though.

You are trying to equate christians who oppose gay marriage from a Biblical point of view to people who attack and physically harm people, this is not accurate. I don't know anyone who has attacked a homosexual. There are nuts out there but I doubt they are Bible believing christians

Again, I know how history will judge your ideology.

That is the other thing I am not worried about history I am worried about how God will judge me. There are many things the world says is acceptable but God will judge otherwise. We are to show people, in love as much as possible, why we feel the way we do and to show people a better way.

You may not see that now, but I'd be willing to bet quite a lot that you'll see it happen in your lifetime. I'm confident that before the end you'll be wondering just like everyone else what the big deal was. Heterosexual marriage isn't under attack -- that's not what we're after. The sooner you stop demonizing us (sometimes literally!) and realize that we're just people who want federal recognition of whom we've chosen to live our lives loving so that we might have the same civil rights for that as you heterosexuals can currently enjoy, then the sooner we can move past all this hooplah and work together on issues together that will better this great nation.

Nobody forces you to not live with your partner or to live your day to day life with whoever you want but what you are asking for is us to accept your lifestyle and we can't do that.