The Gay agenda

[lastcallhall]

This is an article from Jim Daly on Foxnews and it looks like what a few of us conservative christians believe is the gay agenda moving forward to get marriage passed.

I am, naturally, personally opposed to the legalization of same-sex marriage for the simple but profound reason that it violates and contradicts the sacred text of the Bible, which I believe to be true and inspired. But on what basis should I expect people who dont believe as I do to likewise oppose same-sex marriage?

On the basis of logic, reason, common sense and the fact that preservation of traditional marriage is in the best interest of the common good, as evidenced by any number of factors, including reams of social science data and thousands of years of history.

Any discussion on the definition of marriage incites strong emotional reaction. And those of us within the orthodox Christian community understand that many in the culture see this issue very differently, and hold to very passionate views on the subject. We understand that on this matter, in some circles, that never the twain shall meet. Nevertheless, this difference of opinion does not preclude us the privilege of championing a principle we hold dear, especially since its our Christian faith that motivates us to support and defend what we believe to be Gods blueprint for human relationship. In the last half-century, progressives have exercised their own rights of cultural engagement, aggressively championing sweeping cultural changes on numerous levels. Although we may disagree with them, we certainly dont begrudge them the right to engage the process. But in this pursuit to redefine marriage, wouldnt it make sense to consider the outcomes of prior social reengineering efforts?

In the late 1960s, no-fault divorce promised to simplify, streamline and decrease the contentiousness surrounding marital breakup. Instead, it only encouraged struggling spouses to throw in the towel. Fathers abandoned their families in droves. Poverty levels skyrocketed. Prison populations increased at dramatic levels, a consequence of kids now growing up without a father in the home.

A few years later, in 1973, the Supreme Court legalized abortion in all 50 states. Supporters heralded a new era of responsibility, where every child would be a wanted child. Tragically, over 48 million babies have now been aborted and the beauty of life has been cheapened as a result, while child abuse has skyrocketed.

The expansion of welfare promised to alleviate human suffering. While in some ways noble in intent, it disincentivized work, undermined the family unit and created a perpetual cycle of dependency and poverty. Fathers were no longer needed to be an integral part of the family.

Cohabitation is yet another experiment which promised to liberate couples from the burden of marriage. The number of couples living together outside of marriage has increased ten-fold between 1960 and 2000. Over 12 million unmarried partners now live together in the United States. The result? Cohabitation not only decreases a persons appetite for marriage, it also increases the risk of divorce, should the couple ever tie the knot.

Further, a home with two unmarried partners has proven to be the most dangerous place for children in the U.S. Children who live with their mother and boyfriend are 11 times more likely to be sexually, physically, or emotionally abused than children living with their married biological parents.

In each example of social reengineering Ive noted, progressives promised good things. Sadly, the exact opposite has happened. However well-meaning the motivation, reengineering what God has designed is not only unwise, but radical and dangerous, too.

Without evidence of success to which to point, supporters of these ill-fated ventures are left with but one choice: If you cant change unfavorable outcomes, you change the minds of people as to what is considered favorable and good.

Here lies the last great frontier and the last gasp for those determined to re-engineer marriage. Those committed to this form of radicalism have systematically broken down the cultural barrier to same sex marriage by desensitizing people on the issue, stigmatizing those who oppose the movement and potentially criminalizing anyone who stands in opposition to them. The irony in our cultural discussion currently, is if you support traditional marriage, you are the one perceived by the cultural elite to be the radical.

Consider the case of a New Mexico couple who own and operate a photography business. When they kindly refused to shoot a lesbian marriage ceremony, they were summarily brought up on human rights violations by the New Mexico Human Rights Commission. They were fined for not accepting the job. While on the other hand, Christian organizations are now being singled out and suppliers are threatening to no longer supply them with critical support functions like computer technology because of their stand in opposition to same-sex marriage. Those in favor of same-sex marriage do not see the contradiction in these two examples. One group must perform the services and is fined for not doing so (in the name of human rights); the other is allowed to default on their contract because of alleged bigoted behavior on the part of the religious organization (with no regard for religious expression).

If religious liberty is lost in America, we will cease to be the nation our Founders intended us to be. Our rights will no longer be derived from God but from man, and therefore, dangerously beholden to political despots. I dont think Thomas Jefferson intended that to be the outcome for our great nation when he wrote the famous Danbury Baptist Church letter which mentioned the separation of church and state. Contrary to conventional wisdom, President Jefferson was expressing a concern that the church needed to be protected from the state, not the state from the church. It appears his fears are now being realized.

Jim Daly is president and host of "Focus on the Family."


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/05/ ... z1NJdkc5AN


The questions I have for debate are:

1. Is what happened to the New Mexico couple proof that gay marriage will threaten christians and the church from living our faith?

2. If gay marriage is legal in the entire US would churches be forced to recognize gay couples and be forced to hire gay people to positions even if that would be against our beliefs?

[lastcallhall]

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

I gave you an article that I find as true and could give you many, many more. You can refect them all because you don't like the group they belong to but I don't like your members of science so we are at a stand still.

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

No need I do not question that you could provide them

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

I tell no lies, I stand on God's word

Parenting is a difficult and important job.

Yes it is

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

I don't see why my opinion matters at all to you? If you reject what the Bible says I don't have much else I will argue with you about. Believe me or not I don't hate anyone nor see myself as better than anybody else, I am the worst sinner of them all and I know it. But to pretend something is not sin I won't do. I am sorry if it offends you.

[lastcallhall]

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

I understand your point but you really miss mine. My truth is the Bible that is the beginning and the end. I find people who stand on the Bible and value their opinion but it all rests with the Bible. I speak what I feel is God's truth and I am truly sorry if it offends anyone but the truth does hurt at times.

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

Then we are done my friend I will always go back to the Bible

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

I apologize again and have not directly called anyone a fool.

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

I have provided articles and Bible verses and if it is not proof enough again we need to quit. I am sorry if you do not like how I debate or what I use as truth.

I think you are plenty smart, but you were in those situations (I fear) just getting swamped by the complexity of this debate we are having.

Really? Talk about an arrogant cheap shot and I am called the bad guy? This is too complex for me?

Why can't they be happy and go to heaven too lastcallhall?

You can't live in open sin and die and then go to heaven if you have not repented.

Romans 1:24-33
New King James Version (NKJV)

24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality,[a] wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, 30 backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful; 32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.

then I give you revelation

Revelation 21:8
New King James Version (NKJV)

8 But the cowardly, unbelieving,[a] abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.

This seems clear to me

We are *all* sinners, by your admition and definitions

.

Yes we are

Romans 3:23
New King James Version (NKJV)

23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

We all sin with the full knowledge that we will sin in the future. It is through Jesus that your religion says that these sins are forgiven, because nobody is perfect. Jesus, if he was here today, would surely not reject people just because they feel attraction and love. Jesus often preached understanding and acceptance

,

He also asked to turn away from the sin as well, that is the key

John 8:10-11
New King James Version (NKJV)

10 When Jesus had raised Himself up and saw no one but the woman, He said to her,[a] Woman, where are those accusers of yours? Has no one condemned you?
11 She said, No one, Lord.
And Jesus said to her, Neither do I condemn you; go and[c] sin no more.

with cautions that all sins are equal before God's eyes (except blasphemy of the holy spirit) and that since no one is without sin, no one should judge or throw stones because of the sins of others.

You are correct and I will never judge a person's heart, motive, or if they have repented or not. But it is nonsense to say that we are not to call sin, sin and judge what sin is. How could we judge a murder then? Your argument makes no sense.

*Thank* you.

No problem

You are first off assuming that they *don't* love your Lord. Many probably do.

I hope more than I think but from my experiences there are not many

Lastcallhall, *you* are the one expressing hate. You are the one who is being offensive without justification. Everything I know about Jesus tells me that he would frown on you using his words as justification towards causing others harm, judging them, and treating them unfairly simply because they are 'sinners'. Are you without sin Lastcallhall, so as to throw the first stone?

No I condem nobody what I condem is a sinful lifestyle that the Bible clearly calls sin. Like I said earlier can we can anything a sin then? Why can I judge the sin of rape or a murderer?

Do you wish to do unto them as you would have them do unto you? Are you God or Jesus and so empowered to make judgment on your fellow human beings?

You are all but lying, I have told nobody God does not love them, nor have I condemned anyone to hell.

I reject any overly biased source where the speaker doesn't even have the education to conduct an appropriate psychological study, let alone judge those who do.

And you can do that if you wish

As was pointed out by another, even you shouldn't trust Focus on the Family. I hope this realization helps you to see that you should *always* be cynical when reading another person's words. Don't just trust things on face value. People will lie. Even those who profess to be good Christian people (since that too can be a lie).

One bad article or one bad mistake does not ruin what Focus on the Family does and the wonderful man of God Dr. Dobson is and will continue to be.

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

I concede nothing, my views are the same and I feel as strong as I did when we started.

[lastcallhall]

"Children growing up in same-sex parental households do not necessarily

They don't even say it with any authority.

Also if you want the position statement from every major child-welfare and child health organization, just let me know and I will provide.

I never doubted you could pull up many people that agree with you but unfortunately God does not so I still side with him. I am sorry but we just view proof as two totally different things.

[lastcallhall]

As you say, the burden of proof was on lastcallhall. Sometimes I tend to focus on that and point out the wrong of making bold claims without evidence.

I could get many people who disagree with both of you, how can you say you are right?

Especially claims like this one that are blatantly false and hateful.

The Bible says I am right nor are the claims hateful. Why is calling something sin hateful if you don't believe in God anyways?

I earnestly hope that he takes your advice and apologizes to you.

I have done nothing wrong except give my position

[McCulloch]

I never doubted you could pull up many people that agree with you but unfortunately God does not so I still side with him. I am sorry but we just view proof as two totally different things.

God told you? This is an amazing claim. lastcallhall knows the mind of God!

Let me say what I think would be a more accurate statement of your claim. There are many people who agree with Autodidact. Their studies have been thoroughly reviewed and tested. But lastcallhall disagrees with the evidence because it disagrees with his reading of the Bible which he holds to be the Word of God. And even though he may have used reason, logic and evidence to conclude that the Bible is the Word of God, he will not accept reason, logic and evidence to support any idea which contradicts his a priori unquestioning allegiance to the Bible.

I could get many people who disagree with both of you, how can you say you are right?

The people who agree with Autodidact are not just any old people. These are people who can present good reasons to believe them. They have used the best available methods to validate their research. How many people with the academic standing of those presented by Autodidact can you present who disagree?

I have done nothing wrong except give my position

A position which flies in the face of evidence. A position which insults the integrity and ability of an identified group of people, on the basis of ancient prejudice.

[lastcallhall]

God told you? This is an amazing claim. lastcallhall knows the mind of God!

Not directly but he has told all of us his will through the Bible.

Let me say what I think would be a more accurate statement of your claim. There are many people who agree with Autodidact. Their studies have been thoroughly reviewed and tested. But lastcallhall disagrees with the evidence because it disagrees with his reading of the Bible which he holds to be the Word of God. And even though he may have used reason, logic and evidence to conclude that the Bible is the Word of God, he will not accept reason, logic and evidence to support any idea which contradicts his a priori unquestioning allegiance to the Bible.

I agree with much of what McCulloch said here but I think that to accept evidence it has to come from a person who knows the Bible and loves the Lord. I think we all have our biases but if you are secular your opinion will follow that line of logic. I want someone to show me using the Bible something is right or wrong.

The people who agree with Autodidact are not just any old people. These are people who can present good reasons to believe them. They have used the best available methods to validate their research. How many people with the academic standing of those presented by Autodidact can you present who disagree?

Again most of them, IMO, are secular liberals. If that is your political and religious bend your work will reflect that. Of course their studies will show what a secular society wants with no regard for God or the Bible. I don't expect them to include the Bible in the study but you can't expect me to accept their point of view.

A position which flies in the face of evidence. A position which insults the integrity and ability of an identified group of people, on the basis of ancient prejudice

Evidence from your point of view, so none of my evidence counts because it is not peer reviewed or they are a christian? By your logic they are not biased either so we should be able to listen to them too.

[Clownboat]

"Children growing up in same-sex parental households do not necessarily

They don't even say it with any authority.

It's playing out that you may have some bigoted hateful views against a certain minority, and when your source is shown to be crap and others shown to be good that counter what you claim, I'm truly amazed that this is the best you can come up with?

This just goes to show how harmful a free pass can be, and how easily it can be abused.

Also if you want the position statement from every major child-welfare and child health organization, just let me know and I will provide.

I never doubted you could pull up many people that agree with you but unfortunately God does not so I still side with him. I am sorry but we just view proof as two totally different things.

One side has qualified people, the other not. Throw critical thinking right out the window and go la la la, god is on my side, so I am justified having my hate filled speech because I am actually just hating the sin, not the people I often compare with pedophiles.

I find it truly amazing.

I have asked you this on more than one occasion...
Could you walk into a gay bar, look at the men dancing on the stage and "choose" to get an erection?

[Ragna]

Not directly but he has told all of us his will through the Bible.

This sentence will have the same logical validity if we place "Qur'an" or "Mormon's book" or even "The Lord of the Rings". Don't tell us who is right, tell us why they are right.

I agree with much of what McCulloch said here but I think that to accept evidence it has to come from a person who knows the Bible and loves the Lord.

Valuing people over ideas is what always precedes a very faulty logic and the mindset required for ad homines. Many religious people know how to value things for their intrinsic properties and not commit such a fallacy - and they accept evolution. If I remember correctly you have a poor opinion of the Pope, but I'm sure many non-Catholic Christians are also evolutionists.

It's irrational not to consider something because it goes against some prejudice. Things are what they are, not what we wish them to be. That is how the world works, and why wishful thinking doesn't work.

I think we all have our biases but if you are secular your opinion will follow that line of logic. I want someone to show me using the Bible something is right or wrong.

Unless you can demonstrate first that the Bible is right itself, all we have is an incomplete compass without a fixed North. You could be walking to the East and you'd not know or care with this reasoning - because you've already arbitrarily assigned a North without any kind of justification, and you seem to have closed yourself to any further inquiry.

[Clownboat]

God told you? This is an amazing claim. lastcallhall knows the mind of God!

Not directly but he has told all of us his will through the Bible.

Your claim once again is false, I base this on the fact that the bible can be interpreted to say all sorts of things that are not in agreement. It is not god telling you are anyone else anything, that claim is a lie and you only use it to justify your horrible behavior. If it was, we would not have the issue that we have now of all the different opinions about what god wants, hates, loves ect...

Since you cannot prove that your personal opinion of a god is the true one, I must consider your words for what they seem to be... bigoted and hate filled. Personally, I think Jesus would be ashamed of you. But by all means, continue your evil works, because that apparently is what your god wants.

[Deadclown]

Lastcallhall,

I accept your concession but will stop replying point by point since it obviously is going nowhere but circles. You present nothing more than poor evidence, logical fallacies, circular reasoning, bigoted statements, and obstinance. You refuse to present anything more than that. This equates to an effective concession, even if you are not willing to admit it for readers. I think it is very clear for everyone to see.

I do not need to change your mind in order to declare victory, as your end opinion matters little in debate. Until you can support your argument with something better than the fallacious appeals to authority that you presently prop up in an utterly irrational manner, you have failed to defend your statements. That is the bottom line.

I thank you for the opportunity to demonstrate the fallaciousness of your position.

I could get many people who disagree with both of you, how can you say you are right?

If your vague unreferenced 'people' are viable authorities, I would read what they had to say and judge it accordingly. If not, then you are committing your number one logical fallacy (Appeal to Authority). If you mean generic masses of people, then you are making your number two logical fallacy (Appeal to Belief/Popularity).

The Bible says I am right nor are the claims hateful. Why is calling something sin hateful if you don't believe in God anyways?

The bible says nothing about liberal conspiracies, gay conspiracies, slippery slopes, lesbian marriage, or California Law. The rest of your 'evidence' is poor to the point of being laughable. You have effectively conceded even if your pride continues to keep you from admitting as much in so many words. I believe I am well within my rights to at this point declare debate victory, having pointed out the flaws in your reasoning (repeatedly), the flaws in your 'evidence' (many), given you ample opportunity to do better (that you refuse to take), and with the piles of evidence showing that you are wrong (that you completely ignore).

I have done nothing wrong except give my position

Stating bigoted opinions with poor reason is insulting. No less insulting than if I said, 'all Chrisitians are less intelligent than average people', which I would never do, or if I did hypothetically do it, I would make darn sure I could back up my words. You haven't. But feel free to continue to be rude. That is your right, after all.

I agree with much of what McCulloch said here but I think that to accept evidence it has to come from a person who knows the Bible and loves the Lord. I think we all have our biases but if you are secular your opinion will follow that line of logic. I want someone to show me using the Bible something is right or wrong.

Too bad.

Go to Theology and Doctrine then, or the Holy Huddle Room. Or find a Fundamentalist forum to post on. You seem to have an extremely poor understanding of what good evidence is despite me explaining it to you patiently several times. If you only listen to people who already think like you do, or if you only listen to people who parrot what you want to believe, it is little wonder you are incapable of providing backing for your opinion.

We are not the choir. You are not preaching to us.

Now, as promised and requested (since we are essentially done here although I am sure you will continue, and I am a man of my word), I present your top ten logical fallacies. I attempted briefly to rank them by importance and frequency of use. Note these are only fallacies that you've used in this specific thread exchange.

1) Appeal to Authority; both by saying that the bible is a reliable authority on matters of current issues (without backing up the assertion) and homosexual marriage (when the authors are not clearly cited, the book was written thousands of years ago, and it has no basis as being anything more than opinion of anonymous unqualified ancient men). Also the article that you presented as evidence was essentially an appeal to the author's authority, since he lacked the credentials to be offering opinions on the matter at hand or psychological studies in general.

2) Appeal to Popularity or Appeal to Belief; saying that just because many Christians (or people in general) believe that homosexuality is morally wrong, or that homosexual marriage shouldn't be legalized, that this then makes them inferior parents to heterosexual couples.

3) Slippery Slope; when you would comment on the idea that a law making public school teacher bigotry illegal (while also making the specific withholding of homosexual history and current events from social studies classes not acceptable) would then lead to homosexual 'indoctrination' of children. There is no clear evidence nor logical connection between these ideas beyond your conspiracy theory, which you also failed to provide evidence for.

4) Burden of Proof; when you made bold faced generalities such as 'homosexuals are less fit parents than heterosexual couples' without supporting evidence. The evidence that you presented was poor. When shown why it was poor and presented with evidence contrary to your point, you refuse to acknowledge or regard it.

5) Ad Hominem; when you would accuse me of being a liberal while simultaneously accusing liberals of being responsible for a series of worldwide conspiracies (including global warming and evolution). By this effort you attempted to weaken my argument by including me in your accusations of conspiracy. You did later apologize, and I forgave you.

6) Straw Man; when you would accuse me of trying to force my views upon you or judging you as an unfit parent by making the statement that you are limiting your children's college and career options. Also in trying to label me as a liberal, as if my political views must to turn me into either a conservative or a liberal and there are no other options. Although that might be a Black/White Fallacy in part, although not specifically referenced in that manner.

7) Red Herring; you tried multiple times to distract from the issue with offhanded comments regarding your denial of evolution and global warming. While these are important issues, offhanded dismissal of them was an obvious (and successful, shame on me) attempt to distract from the issues at hand.

8) Hasty Generalization; by making broad generalizations about homosexuals or homosexual culture, not only with poor evidence but with no rational basis for extrapolation. It is generally inappropriate to make broad generalizations. For example, there are many heterosexual parents that are not fit to raise children, that does not mean that all heterosexual parents are.

9) Appeal to Tradition; when you commented that since your upbringing was traditional for your family line, that it was therefore right for your children automatically. Saying that something is right, because it is traditional, is fallacious reasoning.

10) Relativist Fallacy; this I think was the weakest example of your logical fallacies and was minor enough that I didn't bother to point it out. You were attempting to say that your children could not ever become homosexual, with no reasonable justification for the statement. You did later seem to change your stance on this one.

Until you provide actual evidence in the manner that this forum defines it, cease use of logical fallacies, and choose to acknowledge (or attempt to point out errors) the evidence that has been presented counter to your point, I will not be giving your responses thorough replies.