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?

[McCulloch]

What exactly is "The Gay agenda"?

How about this: To normalize perversion.

This derogatory quip adds nothing to the debate, other than to show your own biases and prejudices.

How is it that anyone concludes that homosexual behavior is a perversion?

[East of Eden]

What exactly is "The Gay agenda"?

How about this: To normalize perversion.

This derogatory quip adds nothing to the debate, other than to show your own biases and prejudices.

How is it that anyone concludes that homosexual behavior is a perversion?

From Wikipedia:

Perversion is a concept describing those types of human behavior that are a serious deviation from what is considered to be orthodox or normal. Although it can refer to varying forms of deviation, it is most often used to describe sexual behaviors that are seen by an individual as abnormal, repulsive or obsessive. Perversion differs from deviant behavior, since the latter refers to a recognized violation of social rules or norms.


Homosexual activity has traditionally been seen as a perversion. It is certainly a deadly, non-life giving behavior.

[JoeyKnothead]

Romans 1:16

16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ

Matthew 1:7

7 Therefore whatever you desire for men to do to you, you shall also do to them; for this is the law and the prophets.

I agree 100%, if I was living in sin I would hope somebody would call me on it.

Given that none have shown a god to be concerned with the doings of humans, who could?

[JoeyKnothead]

It is certainly a deadly, non-life giving behavior.

Heterosexual sex is often the same in this regard.

[East of Eden]

It is certainly a deadly, non-life giving behavior.

Heterosexual sex is often the same in this regard.

Generally not when done in accordance with God's plan, i.e., one man and one woman in a lifetime marriage relationship.

[East of Eden]

Romans 1:16

16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ

Matthew 1:7

7 Therefore whatever you desire for men to do to you, you shall also do to them; for this is the law and the prophets.

I agree 100%, if I was living in sin I would hope somebody would call me on it.

Given that none have shown a god to be concerned with the doings of humans, who could?

What would constitute evidence of God for your satisfaction on an internet forum. If God really did appear to men thousands of years ago, what kind of evidence would you expect to see?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 273:

Generally not when done in accordance with God's plan, i.e., one man and one woman in a lifetime marriage relationship.

I challenge you to show you speak truth regarding the following:

1- God has a plan
2- This plan is for one man and one woman to be in...
3- A lifetime of marriage

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 274:

What would constitute evidence of God for your satisfaction on an internet forum.

I don't presuppose to know what evidence is available to a claimant.

But don't worry, I'll keep telling you that everytime you ask until you are capable of understanding.

On the issue of an internet forum, this site's rules regarding evidence are posted and available to all who wish to know.

If God really did appear to men thousands of years ago, what kind of evidence would you expect to see?

Some, per site rules.

[micatala]

It is certainly a deadly, non-life giving behavior.

Heterosexual sex is often the same in this regard.

Generally not when done in accordance with God's plan, i.e., one man and one woman in a lifetime marriage relationship.

What role should government have in promoting what is perceived by some religious believers to be God's plan?

Consider the first four commandments. According to those, it is God's plan that we worship the Lord our God alone. Would it not be unconstitutional in the U.S. to make the first four commandments or at least the first two, the law of the land?





A couple of general comments on this thread.


"Gay agenda" is a term fraught with ambiguity. There is no unified gay agenda, just as there is no unified Christian agenda. For the most part, I would suggest gays simply want to have their rights respected by the state and have equality under the law. Some gays may have a wider or more nefarious agenda, but that is true of all groups, including Christians.



On the NM case, I again have to say, having now read the entire decision, that dianaiad and lasthallcall among others seem to be wanting to redefine the terms to their own liking.

I'll partially agree with dianaiad that a photographer is an artist. However, it is clear that as far as the law in NM is concerned, Elane's Photography is a business and a "public accomodation." As such, the actions of that business, regardles of whether they are based on her religious beliefs or any other criteria, are subject to discrimination laws.


So far, dianaiad has not responded to whether it would be OK for Elane to discriminate on the basis of race or gender in her business. As I recall, lasthall call DID say it WOULD be OK for a business to refuse to photograph an interracial marriage, but I may be confusing that reply from some pages ago with someone else.

At any rate, I have yet to see a defense of Elane that really takes into account the implications of that defense in other situations. The law must take that into consideration. If the law allowed Elane to refuse service to gays, then how would the law justify not refusing service to blacks or women or people of certain religious faiths?


I will agree with dianaiad that there is perhaps some difference between "not serving gays in general" and "not being willing to photograph a gay commitment ceremony." Still, even in the latter case, one has to ask what about the "artistic component" of the service Elane's makes the same-sex nature of the ceremony in question relevant.


Finally, I must again point out that this decision against Elane's photography in no way keeps either Elaine the individual or her partner in business from expressing their opinions or practicing their religion. This continual conflation of the personal versus business aspects of this case is not logical or valid.

[East of Eden]

From Post 274:

What would constitute evidence of God for your satisfaction on an internet forum.

I don't presuppose to know what evidence is available to a claimant.

But don't worry, I'll keep telling you that everytime you ask until you are capable of understanding.

On the issue of an internet forum, this site's rules regarding evidence are posted and available to all who wish to know.

If God really did appear to men thousands of years ago, what kind of evidence would you expect to see?

Some, per site rules.

I assume you grossly misunderstand the site rules, considering the mods have never once backed up your constant bogus challenges to my postings. If you don't like my opinions, don't read my posts.