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]

that is your perfect right. It not your right to make that decision for my children.

Nor do you or the gay rights crowd for my children

No, we are a secular nation. You may be more comfortable living in a theocracy.

I believe we were a christian nation and still are christian leaning and yes I look forward to heaven very much.

You don't seem to have any idea what the Theory of Evolution is, but I would be happy to teach you--in a thread on that subject.

Thanks your the second person on this thread that would like to help me understand which monkey is my great great granddaddy. A pic would be nice too.

[Slopeshoulder]

I know all I need to know. One little microbe did not eventually crawl out of the ocean and create male and female everything. That is enough for me, that's insane. The Bible and God tell the story.

What's "insane" is that you would ignore a mountain of science, either because it upsets you, you're lazy, you disrespect civilization (what you call "the world"), or you can't understand it, and then instead pass off an alleged god and magic book that are myth and metaphor as some sort of explanation of physical things in the real world.
There is no basis for discussion or debate. Discussing anything that relies upon reason or knowledge, and demands a respect for them, with you is like discussing ethics with a sociopath. Impossible and worthless. You simply set aside reason and repeat platitudes. This is silly. This is insane.

I hope you have the decency to allow your adult children to choose a life and accept an identity, even if this means gay, democratic, buddhist abortionist. And that you minimize their pain in finding thier own way.

[lastcallhall]

What's "insane" is that you would ignore a mountain of science, either because it upsets you, you're lazy, you disrespect civilization (what you call "the world"), or you can't understand it, and then instead pass off an alleged god and magic book that are myth and metaphor as some sort of explanation of physical things in the real world.

Well hello to you to. Does not upset me, I don't feel I am lazy, but yes I don't have much respect for the world. Slope I have to ask I know you and me are on the opposite ends of the spectrum but you are a christian. This must mean you believe in God, right? If so why would you discount God?

There is no basis for discussion or debate. Discussing anything that relies upon reason or knowledge, and demands a respect for them, with you is like discussing ethics with a sociopath. Impossible and worthless.

Ok

You simply set aside reason and repeat platitudes. This is silly. This is insane.

So the only reasonable position would be to accept evolution, right? I will have to break it to the members of my church this weekend.

I hope you have the decency to allow your adult children to choose a life and accept an identity, even if this means gay, democratic, buddhist abortionist. And that you minimize their pain in finding thier own way.

My ONLY hope, goal, and ultimate success as a man and a father is if my child accept Jesus Christ as their lord and savior. If they do that I have been a successful dad.

Proverbs 22:6
New King James Version (NKJV)

6 Train up a child in the way he should go,
And when he is old he will not depart from it.

I'm sorry we disagree, we usually do, but there are many smart men (much smarter than I) that do not believe in evolution.

[Slopeshoulder]

What's "insane" is that you would ignore a mountain of science, either because it upsets you, you're lazy, you disrespect civilization (what you call "the world"), or you can't understand it, and then instead pass off an alleged god and magic book that are myth and metaphor as some sort of explanation of physical things in the real world.

Well hello to you to. Does not upset me, I don't feel I am lazy, but yes I don't have much respect for the world.

Listen, i have my problems with the world and I totally buy into the idea of radical finitiude (the fall) in search of salvation/transformation. But this is not to attack civilization and basic reason. You go much too far IMO.

Slope I have to ask I know you and me are on the opposite ends of the spectrum but you are a christian. This must mean you believe in God, right? If so why would you discount God?

I don't discount God. But I do discount inadequete notions of god, i do discount rank fundamentalism that dismisses civilization adn reason.

There is no basis for discussion or debate. Discussing anything that relies upon reason or knowledge, and demands a respect for them, with you is like discussing ethics with a sociopath. Impossible and worthless.

Ok

You simply set aside reason and repeat platitudes. This is silly. This is insane.

So the only reasonable position would be to accept evolution, right? I will have to break it to the members of my church this weekend.

No, the only reasnable positon would be to engage the topic reasonably.

I hope you have the decency to allow your adult children to choose a life and accept an identity, even if this means gay, democratic, buddhist abortionist. And that you minimize their pain in finding thier own way.

My ONLY hope, goal, and ultimate success as a man and a father is if my child accept Jesus Christ as their lord and savior. If they do that I have been a successful dad.

Proverbs 22:6
New King James Version (NKJV)

6 Train up a child in the way he should go,
And when he is old he will not depart from it.

Then you are forcing an agenda upon them. Many of us depart from our parents indoctrination because we grow past it. I wonder how you will react if they don't take it up, or do so somewhere to the left of where you are on the spectrum.

I'm sorry we disagree, we usually do, but there are many smart men (much smarter than I) that do not believe in evolution.

But they engage it. They don't trade in ignorance and coarse mischarecterizations. But you give every indication that you haven't engaged it but dismissed it out of hand based on a priori and misinformed emotional commitments.

[lastcallhall]

Listen, i have my problems with the world and I totally buy into the idea of radical finitiude (the fall) in search of salvation/transformation. But this is not to attack civilization and basic reason. You go much too far IMO.

Point taken, I know you are a smart guy and we all have problems with the world per say but I am very passionate about my beliefs and it spills over into debate.

I don't discount God. But I do discount inadequete notions of god, i do discount rank fundamentalism that dismisses civilization adn reason.

ok fair enough but if you don't discount God is it not possible that he created all of this? I know there are christians that believe in evolution but I just don't see it. I don't see it as unreasonable to think God created everything we see.

No, the only reasnable positon would be to engage the topic reasonably.

I believe I do but if I come across as not willing to debate properly I apologize, it is not my intention.

Then you are forcing an agenda upon them. Many of us depart from our parents indoctrination because we grow past it. I wonder how you will react if they don't take it up, or do so somewhere to the left of where you are on the spectrum.

I don't see it as forcing but ok. I just hope and pray they keep the faith. God will help them where I can't.

But they engage it. They don't trade in ignorance and coarse mischarecterizations. But you give every indication that you haven't engaged it but dismissed it out of hand based on a priori and misinformed emotional commitments.

Again I apologize if I have been acting poorly, it is not my intention. Start a thread and I will join in and do my best to engage the entire line of questions. I always try to be fair, at times I know I can be difficult. Anyway start a thread and I will be there.

[Slopeshoulder]

Listen, i have my problems with the world and I totally buy into the idea of radical finitiude (the fall) in search of salvation/transformation. But this is not to attack civilization and basic reason. You go much too far IMO.

Point taken, I know you are a smart guy and we all have problems with the world per say but I am very passionate about my beliefs and it spills over into debate.

Spoken like a gentleman. I like how the rules here make us better. Believe me, I'd be a (even more of a) terror if the rules weren't in place.

I don't discount God. But I do discount inadequete notions of god, i do discount rank fundamentalism that dismisses civilization and reason.

ok fair enough but if you don't discount God is it not possible that he created all of this?

Absolutely possible, yes. I don't deny it. I have ZERO anti-God agenda. And I am no friend of Scientism.

I know there are christians that believe in evolution but I just don't see it. I don't see it as unreasonable to think God created everything we see.

I don't think it's unreasonbale either. it's unevidenced in the modern sense, but that's OK. We can believe it, we just have to be humble about it. I think being humble and passionate at the same time is really really hard. But I do think faith is a commitment to things we can't know, more for aesthetic, moral, and emotional reasons, and that's a good thing. So maybe let's be passionate in our faith but humble in our beliefs.
For my part, I accept that it is all beyond me, and I am personally VERY VERY ignorant when it comes to science. But I suspect that the pure anti-God or anti-evolution arguments are both missing truths which are beyond us all. Anti-god seems reductionistic and unsupported, and anti-evolution often invokes dismissals or crap science. I try to look elsewhere, to other places where the action seems to be anyway, and keep an open mind about creation and evolution instead of creation versus evolution. Maybe all that evolution that seems unbelievable is really like just one electron in one cell in a god the size of a billion galaxies and to him it's no big deal. In that sense evolution could be true and god also created everything. Who know's? I try not to get to worked up about evolution. But god and reason/conscience/civilization do get me pretty worked up.

No, the only reasnable position would be to engage the topic reasonably.

I believe I do but if I come across as not willing to debate properly I apologize, it is not my intention.

Honestly, I often wish we debated less and simply discussed more. We're all wondering the same stuff.

I snipped the rest because 1. i don't want to presume to tell you what to do with your kids any more than I already have, and that was in the context of this thread and also more from anger, so I was wrong. And 2. I am moving 3000 miles tomorrow and won't be able to be really present to a thread, much less one I start, for a while. But I do appreciate the invitation.

[Deadclown]

I really don't care if we become a persecuted minority because I know that no matter what I am following the Lord.

We've been over this time and time again... defending irrationality with random bible quotes only makes your entire position look weaker. Are you trying to propose now that you are alright with oppressing others because you are totally fine with being oppressed yourself?

To the extent you do, no but I know all I need to know. One little microbe did not eventually crawl out of the ocean and create male and female everything. That is enough for me, that's insane. The Bible and God tell the story.

That *is* insane. Any evolutionary biologist would be the first to agree with you.

What would you say if I said, 'I have never read the bible, but I know all I need to know about it to tell that Jesus tells Christians to be evil." You'd think I was bonkers because obviously Jesus does nothing of the sort, and if I'd just *read* the bible, then I'd see that straightaway, that he in fact tells you to do the *opposite* of evil. It is like that with me, you, and evolution.

I read everything you have said but you just get stuck on the fact that I just don't believe your argument.

Again man, not really trying to convince you of anything. This is all for the silent masses. I will keep it up as long as you do.

Again not ignorance, I se you as the ignorant one.

Romans 1:20-22
New King James Version (NKJV)

20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools

You can reject God but DO NOT assume I reject your argument out of ignorance.

What does me 'rejecting' a non-existent fictional character have to do with the Theory of Evolution? There is nothing wrong with ignorance, but spitting in the face of a man who offers to educate you on a matter you admit to be lacking in, is not a good way to learn more. Perhaps you simply need to call me a 'fool' so that you can (much as with the whole 'you're a liberal' thing) rationalize it to yourself that you don't have to listen to me?

I already did? Your children will have an extremely difficult time going into any science related field (biology, geology, physics, etc.) as they are not getting the accurate basic education.

Who cares? That is a good thing to not be around secular God hating people all day, it would drag you down.

You do realize you can be a Christian Scientist don't you?

sure and if they hire him I am all for it

This doesn't really make sense in context. I think you lost the thread of the conversation.

What is respectable to you really means nothing to me. What if my child wants to get into ministry? Or get a business degree why would Liberty not work out?

Notice what you've done there. Limited your child's options. Oh sure, Liberty will work fine... as long as she wants to go into the ministry or get a business degree.

What if she wants to be an Engineer? An Astronaut? An Ambassador? A Doctor?

If I was a parent, I would want my child to have a whole *world* of options and every advantage I could give to help them make their dreams into reality. By saying, 'oh, they will be able to get into one of these small handful of average schools and pursue a moderately okay degree, but not get exposed to the gays or evolution' is not that attitude. I respect your ability to make that decision, I am just trying to point out the inherent flaws in it.

Not up to snuff with Harvard? Who cares!

Well, any business in the world would care a great deal. Your children might care if they are competing for a job and the other person has Harvard on their resume, while they have Liberty University.

I want what is best for my children but 3 generations in my family have been self employed and I hope my children follow me and are blessed as I have been.

That's an Appeal to Tradition.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacie ... ition.html

What worked for you doesn't always work for your children. You again profess wanting what is the *best* for *them*, when it sounds like you are trying to force upon them what was *best* for *you*.

Oh? It seems to happen to famous fundamentalist conservatives all the time? Every couple of months I hear about one guy or another getting caught soliciting sexual favors from a male prostitute. Your children would obviously be deathly afraid of discussing the matter with you, so how do you know they aren't just bottling their real feelings up inside?

http://www.ranker.com/list/top-10-anti- ... gay/joanne

This proves what?

You protested that your children could 'never' be homosexual. People with your religious beliefs and anti-homosexual convictions are caught acting in homosexual manners all the time. It proves that it happens, and points out the ridiculousness of your bold faced statement that your children are immune for some unknown reason.

That point essentially zoomed right over your head, didn't it?

No not really

You have continually stuck by a position of censorship to 'protect your children' from exposure to knowledge. In the book the Monk knew all about sin in theory. He read the bible. He even preached about it. If you keep them completely closeted away from it, they will have no ability to deal with the real world thing. I can read all I want about engines, but that doesn't mean I can fix a car.

I function in life, how do you account for that?

The fact that you function in life is purely your opinion, and not something I expect you to prove to my satisfaction. You are just horribly concerned that your children (who you have in a Christian Fundamentalist Bubble) will get exposed to sin by the outside world. Assuming they don't stay inside the bubble for the rest of their lives, they are going to be theoretically ill equipped to handle the temptation. Perhaps you, for one, have simply stayed within the bubble yourself. I cannot know.

Don't take my word for it, I don't care if you believe it. It was ruled by the 9th circuit court in CA so it really happened.

Here is a link and YES my child will never dishonor God and pray to Allah. That is disgusting and wrong. I would sue the school district that day, it is blasphemy.

Thank you. Now see? I can look at your link and see that it comes from a reliable source. I can also read the information in context. I *can't* just take your word for it, you see. A more dishonest person could take advantage of my trusting nature. It is why it pays to be a skeptic.

Oops! Looks like I caught you. Doesn't *appear* as if what you were quoting actually matches what is on the link you helpfully provided. Let me guess... you realized that you were pulling it from an obviously biased news source and I'd call you on it? And that they were *maybe* just maybe twisting the details of the story to suit an agenda... your agenda?

Emphasis mine.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Oct. 2 refused to consider an appeal from a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision by parents who objected to their 7th graders being required to take a 3-week course in Islam indoctrination in the California public schools. The pro-school, anti-parent case is Eklund v. Byron Union School District.
The Excelsior public school in Byron, California was teaching 7th graders how to act like Muslims, using a student guide stating, "From the beginning [of this module], you and your classmates will become Muslims."

The students were given Muslim names and told to recite Muslim prayers. They were required to give up things for a day to recognize the Islamic practice of Ramadan, and students said that the teacher gave extra credit for fasting at lunch too. Students were told to recite from the Koran, encouraged to wear Arab clothing, told to pretend they were making a pilgrimage to Mecca, and earned points for using Muslim religious phrases such as one meaning "God is great." For the final exam, the students had to write an essay about Islamic culture. The essay assignment warned students as follows: "BE CAREFUL HERE " if you do not have something positive to say, don't say anything!!!"

The school district argued for the court's approval of this course in order to give the teachers assurance they would not be sued for teaching about the Pilgrims and Thanksgiving or Lincoln's Gettysburg Address.

The Byron school district still continues to make the same instructional materials available for use by teachers. In 2003, this public school received a Distinguished School Award from the California Department of Education, declaring it to be one of the state's "most exemplary and inspiring public schools."

Now, let's compare to the page you provided. Emphasis again, mine.

In an unpublished opinion, a three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has ruled that a California school district's use of role-playing in a world history class to teach middle school students about Islam does not violate the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. The suit was brought by two sets of parents whose children attend the Excelsior School against Byron Unified School District (BUSD). The suit claimed that 125 middle school students were asked to select a Muslim name, learn Islamic prayers, stage make-believe pilgrimages to Mecca, fast during lunch to simulate the fasting done during the holy month of Ramadan, dress in Muslim robes, and use Arabic phrases meaning "God is great." The plaintiffs contended that the classes on Islam were not just teaching students about religion, but rather how to practice a religion, which violates the Establishment Clause. The district court dismissed the case, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed. In a brief memorandum opinion, the appeals court concluded that the activities did not constitute "overt religious activities that raise Establishment Clause concerns." The court also found that the district court had not erred in determining that BUSD and the defendant school officials enjoyed qualified immunity, because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the defendants had violated a constitutional right, much less a clearly established one.

[Editor's Note: In a report on the lawsuit in the Sacramento Bee, attorney Edward White from the Thomas More Center for Law and Justice, who represented the plaintiffs, called the ruling "an opinion without any precedent." However, attorney Linda Lye, who represented BUSD, said she was "delighted the school district got this matter behind it" and could "move on with the business of educating children." For background information on the suit, access the NSBA School Law link below. NSBA joined an amicus brief by the California School Boards Association, below, arguing that the pedagogical approach did not rise to the level of a constitutional violation. The case does, however, demonstrate the need for great sensitivity to community concerns when teaching about religion.]

Other than the fact that you are clearly drawing your first article from a biased sort and trying to cover that up, I'd say that there are some high degrees of difference between the details of the first article and the second. For one thing, exactly what was involved in the lessons. It seems *almost* as if the anonymous people in the first article were... oh I don't want to say *lying*... let's call it... exaggerating?

I'd also like to say though, that... just so that you know... Allah means God and is God, just in a different language. The big difference between them and you is they have a prophet after Jesus and don't accept your Jesus' divinity. So saying, 'God is Great' in Arabic is about as blasphemous as saying, 'Go Jesus' in Chinese.

Slopeshoulder, the guy that gave you the gold star. We were debating abortion and he got me to alter my view, very slightly but I did.

Well, don't hold back or be bashful. Link to where it happened? Describe it a bit more? He changed your view on abortion very slightly how?

I apologize I did not correctly write don't sound conservative. No powers just you don't remind me of Billy Graham, Dr. Dobson, or Rod Parsley

I get it. Any one who isn't an ultra-conservative republican who is a god fearing fundamentalist Christian *HAS* to be a liberal. Is that it? If I am not with you I am against you?

Not demonizing, I have many liberal friends and I love them all. Misguided and we have arguments but in the end we get along.

Why is it, whenever anyone is accused of discrimination the very *first* response is to say, 'Oh I am not discriminating, I have lots of [black, Jewish, atheist, liberal, gay] friends and think they are great!'? Hypothetical question, of course.

Lastcallhall, you were very clearly laying a lot of really hefty accusations against the Liberals. For example, you accused them of having both a Gay and an Evolutionary Conspiracy. So accusing them of trying to manipulate the whole world. You were quite clearly then trying to label me as a liberal. I could dig up the whole line of quotes if you like?

My only point is that it is not settled science by any stretch. I seek the truth and honestly either way I don't care at all about global warming real or not real.

Did you read my links? You see, 97%... is pretty settled. It doesn't get much more settled than that. Also now you don't care about it either way?! You sure seemed to care about it in previous posts?

I'm not pulling your leg, do you think many people on the right believe that? Is it true, no. Like global warming your side packages it as truth but that is far from reality.
...
Not to long ago a few hundred scientists signed a paper stating global warming is crap, are they all wrong?

It is difficult sometimes admitting fault, but it is the honorable thing to do, and deserving of respect. I am going to assume by your relative silence that you were referencing Sen. James M. Inhofe's list?

Like I said I really truly don't care. God is going to restore the earth so I don't want to debate global warming. I wouldn't change my lifestyle or my gas guzzler no matter what.

Oh... I see. You don't want to sacrifice your lifestyle so are choosing to ignore the evidence and count on God to wave his magic wand and make the CO2 go away.

You spoke with Slopeshoulder a bit about the Evolution thing, and it sounds like you are more willing to be open and polite about it.

I would like to make clear that no, I do not think you are dumb. I think it is inappropriate for anyone though to dismiss out of hand something they do not take the time to try and learn about.

I will try and help. It is long and involved, but will get you started. The answers to the above are here, and if you can define them in your own words you will make me eat crow.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-int ... ology.html

I understand you think the Bible is not a response but I do

It's not just me. It's pretty much everyone you debate in these actual debate forums. You can rely on the bible all you want in the Holy Huddle Room or in like Random Ramblings.

No, please help me kind sir

Boy I really didn't expect that, can you give me a credit source? Maybe a secular humanist, God hating intellectual from an Ivy league school that can show us christians where we are wrong this time.

Oh, so now when I call you on your erroneous statements, demand evidence, and then show you why where you are getting your information is from a biased, uneducated, individual so obviously pushing an agenda it is painful... I need to provide evidence supporting your point?

You see, lastcallhall, if the only places where you can find information supporting your narrow fringe fundamentalist bigoted opinions are from narrow fringe fundamentalist bigots with poor educations (talking about subjects out of their area of expertise), agendas, and financial incentives... it just might be that your opinions are... wrong.

At the very least, your opinions are irrational.

Also, side note. What is bad about being intellectual? An intellectual is a person who uses their brain and critical thinking in a professional or personal capacity. I'm not sure I'd want to listen to anyone who didn't do that. I can't imagine why anyone would.

[Autodidact]

Just as I said. Not a single study comparing lesbian families to heterosexual families. Until you find a study that shows that heterosexual families do a better job raising children than lesbian families*, you should stop stating that they do; it is not honest.

Reject the study, I don't care. I have more but you will reject those as well. I am not being dishonest you just reject what this man says.

I'm not rejecting any study. You haven't cited one. Do you know what a study is? You linked to an article, not a study. The article does not refer to a single study that shows heterosexual parents do better than lesbian parents. Not one.

*You can't, because there aren't any. There aren't any, because it's not true. The fact is that children of lesbian families turn out AT LEAST AS WELL as children of heterosexual families.

Telling lies about other people isn't nice. Didn't anyone ever teach you that?

Who is lying?

Follow me here:
1. You have no evidence whatsoever that children of heterosexual parents turn out better than children of lesbian parents. [That includes the article you linked, which contains no evidence of this.]
2. You claim that they do.
3. I am happy to cite hundreds of studies--reputable, scientific, rigorous, peer-reviewed studies, that show that children of lesbian parents do as well as, and in some ways better than, children of heterosexual parents, as well as statements from child welfare and health organizations based on those studies.
4. It is therefore fair to conclude that your claim is false.
Yet you keep making it.
When someone makes a claim that has been shown to be false, what do you call it?

Spreading slander about groups of people is wrong. It's immoral. Please stop doing it. Thank you.

[Autodidact]

Are you saying that they are not Christians? Is that up to you to decide? Is it common for non-Christians to say they're Christian?

Like I said people can call themselves anything they wish, I could call myself cool but it may or may not be true. I just think you have to reject much of the Bible to be in a homosexual lifestyle and think the Bible accepts that.

Are you saying that these people are not Christians?

[Autodidact]

We were a christian nation and still are christian leaning and yes I look forward to heaven very much.

I'm afraid you're mistaken.

You don't seem to have any idea what the Theory of Evolution is, but I would be happy to teach you--in a thread on that subject.

Thanks your the second person on this thread that would like to help me understand which monkey is my great great granddaddy. A pic would be nice too.

Just let me know if you're ever interested in learning what the Theory of Evolution is. I will be happy to teach you. Until you do, it would be wise not to form an opinion on whether or not it's correct.