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?

[Clownboat]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/08/10/pe ... latestnews

This article is an example of this agenda, in my opinion. This is an attempt to indoctrinate children into accepting this lifestyle and is not appropriate for a childrens program. This article shows how far the homosexual community is going to have same sex marriage accepted by all like it or not.

Thanks

Why is it not appropriate for a children's program? Are weddings not something children should know about?

Hi Autodidact, thanks for the response. This is not for children because it confuses them. Marriage is between a man an a woman so this is not marriage as defined by our Lord Jesus. I would not want my children taught anything that is offensive to God is acceptable.

Thanks

I see. You want all television programming to advocate your particular religious propaganda. You don't want it to reflect views that differ from yours. And why should your odd religious views prevail on the airwaves?

How on earth would it "confuse" children to learn about reality? Gay people, like straight people, get married. Your position is that children should not learn this?

It sounds to me like you want television to enforce anti-gay bigotry, and you object to any depiction that promotes equality. Yet you "don't think of yourself as a bigot."

to you he may be a bigot..but in his own mind, he's defending his territory.

I think it has been shown that he is a bigot, your excuse for him being a bigot is irrelevant.

For example:
A murderer is still a murderer, even if he is murdering for religious reasons.
A bigot is a bigot....

yes and without him you'd have nothing to argue about....

I showed evidence to support my point that he is a bigot.
Why YOU even bother posting, I am not sure.

[Jester]

Moderator Warning

yes and without him you'd have nothing to argue about....

Yet you "don't think of yourself as a bigot."

Why YOU even bother posting, I am not sure.

The civility here is breaking down.
Also, there is very little in the way of content here. Everyone, remember to debate the subject, not the person.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[311]

[Replying to lastcallhall in post #549]

Sure!

Labeling ourselves is an act of slandering God's vision for us. And that vision is to carry each other's burden (eg. love your neighbor). I believe this is what it means when Jesus said we must "deny ourself"; meaning, let go of all the labels/slander we -and others- put on ourselves and simply just love one another.

If not, then we resort back to virtue-signaling which leads to more war.

Another thing about labels/slander?

The devil calls himself an "ATHEIST". Look closely!

He is actually calling himself "A THEIST". Crafty, huh? Isaiah 14:14 says he exalted himself about God & Heaven. He says does not believe but wants so desparately to be worshipped as God.

(ref: Gen 3; 2 Thess. 2:10)