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?

[dianaiad]

From Post 69:

...
.....and I keep being told that having the government redefine marriage to include gays won't force religions to marry gay people or alter their doctrines and behavior; that this won't interfere with freedom of religion.

Given that so many religious folks think it's their god-given right to interfere in the lives of others, maybe what we need is some interferin' in religion.

Of course, Joey.

....and what, exactly, do you think it is your right to tell me what I have to do to make you feel better about me disagreeing with you on religious issues?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 71:

.....and I keep being told that having the government redefine marriage to include gays won't force religions to marry gay people or alter their doctrines and behavior; that this won't interfere with freedom of religion.

Given that so many religious folks think it's their god-given right to interfere in the lives of others, maybe what we need is some interferin' in religion.

Of course, Joey.

....and what, exactly, do you think it is your right to tell me what I have to do to make you feel better about me disagreeing with you on religious issues?

The rules of this site say we're allowed to comment, so long as we follow all the other rules, so I have some rights there, but maybe not to just tell you how you oughta go about doin' your livin'. Except to kindly ask that maybe if you got a chance, you wouldn't try to prevent a bunch of others from them doing some livin' too.

On the making me feel better deal, I propose you let go of the past regarding governmental interference in your religion, and try to understand how some of that bunch in your religion are doing the same sorta interference y'all are still so mad about.

This is a golden opportunity for Mormons, they could even create a situation where gay folks'd be standing up for them and their wanting to marry a whole bunch of folks at once deal.

It just just strikes me as goofy that one'd lament the ability to oppress other folks simply according to who they decide to do their beddin' down with.

Do religious folks not have more pressing matters than to interfere in folks expressing their love for one another?

Are all the kids fed yet? Are they all clothed yet? Are they all sheltered yet?

[Cathar1950]

From Post 69:

...
.....and I keep being told that having the government redefine marriage to include gays won't force religions to marry gay people or alter their doctrines and behavior; that this won't interfere with freedom of religion.

Given that so many religious folks think it's their god-given right to interfere in the lives of others, maybe what we need is some interferin' in religion.

Of course, Joey.

....and what, exactly, do you think it is your right to tell me what I have to do to make you feel better about me disagreeing with you on religious issues?

I doubt there is any end to what forms interference in religion can take, I am sure no one is safe.
Can a white church keep blacks out or prevent their marriage?
At this point I am hoping that individual will ever be forced to go against their beliefs, this is one of the reasons for the evolution of the ideas of separation between church and state.

In this country it isn't a right to not educate your children but a law that you must provide an education that prepares them for living in the larger society and needed to be educated for self government.
Education was also demanded to provide a literate and discipline work force, plus it kept young men from standing on streets playing pocket pool with their tight sexually stimulating pants.

[Board]

Services like photographers, however, are not (even though New Mexico says so) They are artists, and as such they depend upon their own convictions and beliefs than someone who owns a McDonalds does.

By this case, New Mexico has said that if you are a photographer...or anybody else who offers a service, you have no say in who you work for; if someone wants you to take their picture, then you have to take their picture, no matter what.

...................you can't say no because you don't want to go to a dangerous area. You can't say no because you don't feel experienced enough to do the job properly. You cannot, in other words, say no, period. You especially can't say 'no' because your religion says you can't.

This is simply not true. Walk into any contractor's office and ask for work to be done and you know what they say? They have to schedule you in... if you need the work done on a specific day that they are already busy? They say no... and they refer you to someone else. That is all the photographers had to do in New Mexico is refer them to someone else and state that they were not able to do the wedding ceremony.

This is not a lie. they are not able to do the shoot because of their religious convictions but they do not have to explain themselves if they act professionally and refer the couple to other photographers and keep their real reasons to themselves. They choose to voice their discriminatory position and as such deserve to be sued.

.....and I keep being told that having the government redefine marriage to include gays won't force religions to marry gay people or alter their doctrines and behavior; that this won't interfere with freedom of religion.

Yeah, right.

Churches may have to make a decision on how they handle their business is all. As I linked earlier in this thread, if a church operates a hall or outside meeting place that is open to the public then they may very well be forced by the government to not discriminate against the minority and allow people they do not agree with to use their space. All the Churches need to to is start limiting the use to members only and poof, the problem goes away.

Basically if the Church offers a public service they cannot discriminate. If they keep those services private then they can do whatever they please. But if they choose to discriminate and they offer a public space then they will likely lose their tax exempt status for the property in question...

[dianaiad]

From Post 71:

.....and I keep being told that having the government redefine marriage to include gays won't force religions to marry gay people or alter their doctrines and behavior; that this won't interfere with freedom of religion.

Given that so many religious folks think it's their god-given right to interfere in the lives of others, maybe what we need is some interferin' in religion.

Of course, Joey.

....and what, exactly, do you think it is your right to tell me what I have to do to make you feel better about me disagreeing with you on religious issues?

The rules of this site say we're allowed to comment, so long as we follow all the other rules, so I have some rights there, but maybe not to just tell you how you oughta go about doin' your livin'. Except to kindly ask that maybe if you got a chance, you wouldn't try to prevent a bunch of others from them doing some livin' too.

On the making me feel better deal, I propose you let go of the past regarding governmental interference in your religion, and try to understand how some of that bunch in your religion are doing the same sorta interference y'all are still so mad about.

This is a golden opportunity for Mormons, they could even create a situation where gay folks'd be standing up for them and their wanting to marry a whole bunch of folks at once deal.

It just just strikes me as goofy that one'd lament the ability to oppress other folks simply according to who they decide to do their beddin' down with.

Do religious folks not have more pressing matters than to interfere in folks expressing their love for one another?

Are all the kids fed yet? Are they all clothed yet? Are they all sheltered yet?

Joey, you don't seem to get it even yet.

I do not, (and Mormons in general do not, either) intend to stop people 'expressing their love for one another." I, specifically, have no problem with gays coupling, even officially, in any manner they think appropriate. Or not appropriate. Whatever...not my problem.

However, as is well illustrated by this situation with the photographer (who was sought out and set up by a gay rights activist for the express purpose of causing a lawsuit...and that's not paranoia, that's the frank admission of the woman who sued the photographer) my problem comes when what other folks want us, not only to allow, but to approve, and to be forced to offer services as if we approve, of what we think are immoral choices.

This photographer, for instance, would not have been sued had she refused to photograph a wedding where the participants were in the nude, or hang gliding, or base jumping in a Mexican cave...actual weddings all...no problem. Her choice as to what assignments she would pick; that's understood.

Unless one is gay, of course, and then one can demand services from anyone, whether they approve of you or not, on pain of law.

So tell me what the basic difference is between a refusal to photograph a nude wedding...and a gay one, that it would be legal to refuse to photograph the one but not the other, and after examining those differences, kindly explain to me how the photographers individual civil rights were NOT smashed to smithereens?

In NM, gay weddings are legal.
So are nude ones, in private venues--and most weddings are in private venues.

In NM, the reason for refusing to photograph nude weddings are both moral and artistic: to many people, public nudity is immoral. Artistically, public nudity is just ugly.

The reason for refusing to photograph gay weddings; moral, because gay relationships violate the morals of some belief systems. Artistic, because someone experienced in heterosexual wedding photography doesn't have the knowhow to properly shoot a gay wedding. You may as well hand disposable cameras to the wedding guests, use those, and save money. An artist (and that's what a photographer is), especially a free lance artist, should be able to refuse any assignment, for any reason at all, up to and including not liking the client's shirt buttons. or his 'gayness."

..........and would a gay photographer get sued for not photographing a straight wedding?

Not in your wildest dreams.

And if you think that this isn't going to keep going until the law says one MUST perform gay marriages in one's church and according to one's religious ceremonies, or get sued, you need to revisit what NM did when it decided that wedding photographers were a 'public accommodation."

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 75:

Miss dianaiad, I agree the issues involving this photography deal are problematic to downright disturbing from all perspectives - I get your argument of "naked vs gay weddings", and think it compelling to a high degree. My comments were in regard to other issues, so I'll leave it at that.

[dianaiad]

From Post 75:

Miss dianaiad, I agree the issues involving this photography deal are problematic to downright disturbing from all perspectives - I get your argument of "naked vs gay weddings", and think it compelling to a high degree. My comments were in regard to other issues, so I'll leave it at that.

Yeah...

Thank you.

But I can't think of a single thing that illustrates my one and only objection to gay marriage (well, at least, what some gays seem to be wanting in regard to it) more exactly than this incident.

[dianaiad]

From Post 69:

...
.....and I keep being told that having the government redefine marriage to include gays won't force religions to marry gay people or alter their doctrines and behavior; that this won't interfere with freedom of religion.

Given that so many religious folks think it's their god-given right to interfere in the lives of others, maybe what we need is some interferin' in religion.

Of course, Joey.

....and what, exactly, do you think it is your right to tell me what I have to do to make you feel better about me disagreeing with you on religious issues?

I doubt there is any end to what forms interference in religion can take, I am sure no one is safe.
Can a white church keep blacks out or prevent their marriage?

No, actually....but as it happens, a black church can do that to whites, just as there is a Black Caucus in the US congress to which no white (even when most of their constituents are African-American and membership in such a group would help the congress member do his or her job) may apply, but nobody had better hint about forming a 'white caucus.' Whatever reasons you might assign to such a state of affairs, or whether you approve or not, that state of affairs does exist.

At this point I am hoping that individual will ever be forced to go against their beliefs, this is one of the reasons for the evolution of the ideas of separation between church and state.

That would be good. However, and as you can see, that's not the way this is going.

In this country it isn't a right to not educate your children but a law that you must provide an education that prepares them for living in the larger society and needed to be educated for self government.

.............uh, OK?

Education was also demanded to provide a literate and discipline work force, plus it kept young men from standing on streets playing pocket pool with their tight sexually stimulating pants.

TMI

[flitzerbiest]

This is simply not true. Walk into any contractor's office and ask for work to be done and you know what they say? They have to schedule you in... if you need the work done on a specific day that they are already busy? They say no... and they refer you to someone else. That is all the photographers had to do in New Mexico is refer them to someone else and state that they were not able to do the wedding ceremony.

This is not a lie. they are not able to do the shoot because of their religious convictions but they do not have to explain themselves if they act professionally and refer the couple to other photographers and keep their real reasons to themselves. They choose to voice their discriminatory position and as such deserve to be sued.

Agreed, for the most part, although I would not be too quick to dismiss the fundamental dishonesty of declining a client in such a way. Unfortunately, what you propose is S.O.P within some human resources departments. "I'm sorry--but I don't think your credentials are a good fit for the position we are offering" sounds much more benign than "I'm sorry--we don't hire transgendered freaks", but the result is the same.

[Board]

Agreed, for the most part, although I would not be too quick to dismiss the fundamental dishonesty of declining a client in such a way. Unfortunately, what you propose is S.O.P within some human resources departments. "I'm sorry--but I don't think your credentials are a good fit for the position we are offering" sounds much more benign than "I'm sorry--we don't hire transgendered freaks", but the result is the same.

This is where the those who demonize PC enjoy its benefits. If you veil your bigotry behind Politically Correct terms and statements then you protect yourself from a lawsuit. Other than that being PC is apparently a bad thing? hmmm....

I agree with you though, I would much rather people not hold to discriminatory practices but... such is life in a free society.