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?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 248:

Wealth tends to promise what only God can deliver, true satisfaction, security, etc.

I challenge you to show you speak truth in this regard.

And, knowing your penchant for declaring challenges to your claims "off topic", I went ahead and set up a new thread...

Here

[dianaiad]

Let me see if I have this right:

You figure that Stalin (who, by the way, did not 'double tap" people. Mostly he starved them to death) was better than the Christians because even though he murdered far more people, at least he didn't burn them to death?

Do I have that right?

Are we REALLY playing "He who murders the fastest wins?"

Whoa, Di. You're forgetting something. You don't get to play anymore until you admit your error in accusing me of engaging in the ad numerum fallacy and your total misunderstanding of the fallacy. It's an intellectual integrity thing. You either have it or you don't.

Which is it?

Strider, now you are committing yet another fallacy; an appeal to...shoot, it's late, and I don't know the name of it. If it has one.

Call it an 'appeal to an appeal" if you wish: the idea that an argument is invalid because you claim that a previous argument made on an entirely different topic is invalid.

Even if I had been wrong on the appeal to numbers, that does NOT mean that your argument here has any merit. Because it doesn't, no matter own wrong other people are on any number of other topics.

That said, I was right about the appeal to numbers; you used a variation, it's true, but it's still using the NUMBERS Of people to argue something. That is, you used the fact that there are more Christians than there are Jews, etc., to prove that Christians can't possibly be oppressed...because of their numbers; because there are more of them, you argued that it is impossible for them to be oppressed.

that IS an appeal to numbers. Your belief that simply because there are more Christians than Jews or atheists means that the larger group MUST then be the oppressors.

The problem is, Strider, it hasn't worked that way throughout history. Yes, the larger group can be the oppressive one, but not always...and not so frequently as to assume that because there is more of one sort of folks than another, that the larger numbers are going to be the oppressive ones.

And that IS an appeal to numbers; if you wish, you can call it a corollary.

[Strider324]

Right, black and Chinese folks just aren't as smart as us, right?

Wow, went to the Race Card already, huh? That's telling.

Of you, who pretty much brought it up.

No sir, I brought up a 3rd World Continent. You are the one who went immediately to Race. It might surprise you to learn that Africa is made up of Arabs, Europeans, Indians, Blacks, and Chinese, among other groups.

This is now the 2nd time you have attempted to paint me as a racist. This is a craven, desperate tactic usually employed by those who fear they are getting stomped like a narc at a biker rally. If you have the integrity and honor I always assume posters have, you will admit your unfounded accusation. If not, you have my sympathy, if not my respect.

[Strider324]

Let me see if I have this right:

You figure that Stalin (who, by the way, did not 'double tap" people. Mostly he starved them to death) was better than the Christians because even though he murdered far more people, at least he didn't burn them to death?

Do I have that right?

Are we REALLY playing "He who murders the fastest wins?"

Whoa, Di. You're forgetting something. You don't get to play anymore until you admit your error in accusing me of engaging in the ad numerum fallacy and your total misunderstanding of the fallacy. It's an intellectual integrity thing. You either have it or you don't.

Which is it?

Oh my Lowered! This is starting to make me want to cry. You can't possibly be this obtuse, and yet I'm still loth to consider you disingenuous. I have much higher hopes for you.

Call it an 'appeal to an appeal" if you wish: the idea that an argument is invalid because you claim that a previous argument made on an entirely different topic is invalid.

Nowhere have I made such a claim.

Even if I had been wrong on the appeal to numbers, that does NOT mean that your argument here has any merit. Because it doesn't, no matter own wrong other people are on any number of other topics.

I have made absolutely no comment on 'my argument here'. I declined to respond to your last post very clearly because I won't consider anything further you have to say until this impasse is resolved. You seem to want to move ahead with no redress. I can understand that, but you should consider it beneath you.

You have accused me of engaging in fallacy. That dog don't hunt. Your option, if you have any intention of continuing to engage me on ANY topic, is to either prove your contention or retract. That's what honorable posters do. And at least as of now, I consider you an honorable poster.

That said, I was right about the appeal to numbers; you used a variation, it's true, but it's still using the NUMBERS Of people to argue something. That is, you used the fact that there are more Christians than there are Jews, etc., to prove that Christians can't possibly be oppressed...because of their numbers; because there are more of them, you argued that it is impossible for them to be oppressed.

I did no such thing. You should have done the right thing and asked for clarification if you didn't understand the graphic. Intent should always be verified rather than assumed. That graphic simply makes light of the notion of a majority group whining about being oppressed. It's humorous, and I daresay humorous for obvious reasons. I make NO claim that oppression of a mjority is IMPOSSIBLE -Apartheid being just the obvious example - and your decision to figuratively put these words into my mouth is ill-conceived.

that IS an appeal to numbers. Your belief that simply because there are more Christians than Jews or atheists means that the larger group MUST then be the oppressors.

Your reasoning and assumptions are flawed, as noted above.

And that IS an appeal to numbers; if you wish, you can call it a corollary.

OK, I take your equivocation here as possibly an earnest attempt to recognize that you were off track.

If you recall, I made an ill-considered response to a post a few weeks ago that you rightfully called me out on. What was my response? I admitted my error. It's an Integrity thing.

I'm expecting you to have the same character here. If you do, cool. I look forward to interacting with you in the future. If not, I really have no use for you. I consider arguing with stones is a huge waste of my Spirit. I'm already done with Hobbes and Shermana. We'll see if Eden can step up.

That said, I have FAITH in YOU! I told you, you're one of my favorites! I'm sure we'll see your true colors anon!

[East of Eden]

I challenge you to show you speak truth in this regard.

That is my opinion, I never said I could scientifically prove it, as I assume you again expect me to do. 'Satisfaction' is subjective.

[lo_rez]

Contract work IE portraits, weddings, commercial (photographing products for ads), journalism, etc. are works for hire. I want 20 8X10 glossies of that car over there so I can sell it, is work for hire, as is photograph my wedding for a fee.

When you contract for work like this, yes it's "art", but it is really more commercial contract work, and subject to commercial law.

You and I both know there's a world of artistic difference between the carsoup 640 by 480 still of your toyota corolla and the wedding pictures you put on the mantle and pass down to your children. A wedding photographer who approaches his work like he's going to publish them in autotrader isn't going to get much work.

In the case of Elan, that was strictly contract work done under a real contract. You can't tell me there is an artistic difference photographing a gay couple as opposed to a straight couple.

I'm not a photographer but if an artist can't get wrap his head around the subject matter, that artist's works will suffer. In any case, its irrelevant to the point I am trying to make. I think photographers, or any artists for that matter, should be free to pick and choose their commissions as they fit.

[JoeyKnothead]

I challenge you to show you speak truth in this regard.

That is my opinion, I never said I could scientifically prove it, as I assume you again expect me to do. 'Satisfaction' is subjective.

So we see then your claim is empty as a Sunday morning liquor bottle.

[East of Eden]

I challenge you to show you speak truth in this regard.

That is my opinion, I never said I could scientifically prove it, as I assume you again expect me to do. 'Satisfaction' is subjective.

So we see then your claim is empty as a Sunday morning liquor bottle.

Oh, I get it, nothing outside of a science lab can be proved.

[SailingCyclops]

'What profit has not this fable of Christ brought us?

A common idea on this thread is christianity is the problem ....

Christianity is a major social problem. Societies are worse off 'when they have God on their side'

THE SUNDAY TIMES

RELIGIOUS belief can cause damage to a society, contributing towards high murder rates, abortion, sexual promiscuity and suicide, according to research published today.

According to the study, belief in and worship of God are not only unnecessary for a healthy society but may actually contribute to social problems.

The study counters the view of believers that religion is necessary to provide the moral and ethical foundations of a healthy society.

It compares the social peformance of relatively secular countries, such as Britain, with the US, where the majority believes in a creator rather than the theory of evolution. Many conservative evangelicals in the US consider Darwinism to be a social evil, believing that it inspires atheism and amorality.

Many liberal Christians and believers of other faiths hold that religious belief is socially beneficial, believing that it helps to lower rates of violent crime, murder, suicide, sexual promiscuity and abortion. The benefits of religious belief to a society have been described as its spiritual capital. But the study claims that the devotion of many in the US may actually contribute to its ills.

The paper, published in the Journal of Religion and Society, a US academic journal, reports: Many Americans agree that their churchgoing nation is an exceptional, God-blessed, shining city on the hill that stands as an impressive example for an increasingly sceptical world.

In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy and abortion in the prosperous democracies.

The United States is almost always the most dysfunctional of the developing democracies, sometimes spectacularly so.
[...]

The actual study Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies is fascinating, and shows how incidents of anti-social behavior is directly proportional to the level of religiosity in the society.

So yes, to a large degree Christianity IS the problem, spectacularly so here in the U.S. where the aforementioned ills abound amidst bigotry and hate towards many. In this thread, that bigotry and hate with it's concomitant violence, is clearly seen displayed towards the gay community.

Voltaire was correct when he said "If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities". The more religious we become as a nation, the more war-like and violent we become.

Bob

[SailingCyclops]

I'm not a photographer but if an artist can't get wrap his head around the subject matter, that artist's works will suffer.

I don't disagree with you. However, I must take it a step further and ask why a photographer could not "wrap his head" around a gay wedding but could around a straight one? It has nothing to do with the visual matter, that is the same in both cases. If it has to do with bias and bigotry, then I have no sympathy.

In any case, its irrelevant to the point I am trying to make. I think photographers, or any artists for that matter, should be free to pick and choose their commissions as they fit.

I suppose we will have to agree to disagree. I see a distinct difference between spontaneous art and contract work. The latter is, and in my opinion should be, subject to the same rules any other contract labor is subject to. Otherwise abuses will occur as clearly seen in the Elane case. That was a clear case of homophobic bias, having nothing to do with artistic freedom.

Bob