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 278:

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.

I assume you grossly got caught spouting your opinion, and are unable to back it up, and have decided instead to carry on about anything but the challenged claims.

I'll read what posts I decide, thankyouverymuch.

Your appeal to moderator rulings is essentially an appeal to numbers, and has no bearing on the veracity of any previously challenged "opinions" you've put forth.

[lastcallhall]

"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.

The term "gay agenda" refers to cases like this that cause christians like me to be worried about being sued for our beliefs. Some, not all, homosexuals who are pushing for marriage also want the church to be forced to recognize them and if not suffer. This case is an example of that.

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.

How so?

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.

I own a business and I will not let anyone dictate or force a view down my throat, Elane should also have the ability to not perform the marriage. Why could they not go somewhere else? They want to ruin this person's business plain and simple.

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.

I said that I think anyone should be able to turn away business if they want and not get sued. If you are a racist and don't want to serve blacks go ahead but I would hope enough people would stop going to the business that it would have to shut down. The problem with discrimination laws is it is a very easy thing to throw around to get someone in trouble even if it is not true. I have black friends who I love to death but I also know some that have used their skin color to get people fired just because they did not like them. They accused them of being racist and even though it may not be true the person got fired.

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.

I think it does prevent them from their religious views because if you fell that the homosexual lifestyle is sin and you are forced to take pictures at the ceremony that would be highly offensive.

[East of Eden]

Secondly, in what way is homosexuality "deadly?"

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articl ... o0075.html

According to one study, gay men's lives are shortened by 20 years, which makes the effects of cigarette smoking pale in comparison.

If you use highly selective methods of picking your data, then of course you can probably prove anything.

Your link quotes:

An epidemiological study from Vancouver, Canada of data tabulated between 1987 and 1992 for AIDS-related deaths reveals that male homosexual or bisexual practitioners lost up to 20 years of life expectancy.

One study in one Candian city over a 5-year span from 20 years ago is pretty poor support for your general conclusion.

And, the footnote for this notes the study notes they were focused on HIV.

R. S. Hogg, S. A. Strathdee, et al., "Modeling the Impact of HIV Disease on Mortality in Gay and Bisexual Men," International Journal of Epidemiology, 26(3): 657-661, p. 659 (1997). Death as the result of HIV infection has dropped significantly since 1996. "Life Expectancy Hits New High in 2000; Mortality Declines for Several Leading Causes of Death," CDC News Release, October 10, 2001, www.cdc.gov/nchs/releases/01news/mort2k.htm. Nevertheless, it remains a significant factor in shortened life expectancy for homosexual practitioners.

Notice the disclaimers. Even these authors are not audacious enough to claim the numbers from this study are applicable to more recent times, never mind the limitations in location.


I am sure we can show data that support promiscuity lowers life expectancy, and you can probably even find legitimate data to show male homosexuals are somewhat more promiscuous than males on average.

This still does not show that homosexuality is somehow inherently deadly.

Your argument is highly fallacious.

Not according to the Canadian Rainbow Health Coalition. Are you going to just dismiss them too?


Homosexuals Complaint against Health Canada Lists Negative Health Consequences of Homosexual Lifest
by LifeSiteNews.com
Thu May 14, 2009 11:15 EST
Comments (0)


By Thaddeus M. Baklinski

May 14, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A group of homosexuals headed by Gens Hellquist, director of the Canadian Rainbow Health Coalition, has filed a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC), in which they detail the numerous statistics that prove the high-risk nature of the homosexual lifestyle.

The group claims that Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada discriminate against the countrys homosexuals by not providing "equitable levels of programming supports based on needs when compared with programming supports from the general population and other minority populations."

The group supports their complaint by claiming that the Canadian health system does not allocate specific funding to deal with "those health issues where gay, lesbian and bisexual (GLB) communities are disproportionately affected" and argues that this is a form of prohibited discrimination based on "homophobia."

Statistical evidence is then proffered, in the groups 10 page complaint to the CHRC, of the health issues which "disproportionately affect" the homosexual community, including:

- The life expectancy for gay and bisexual men is 20 years less than the average Canadian man;
- GLB people commit suicide at rates ranging from twice as often to almost 14 times more than the general population;
- GLBs have smoking rates ranging from 1.3 to three times higher than average;
- GLBs become alcoholics at a rate 1.4 to seven times higher than the general population;
- GLBs use illicit drugs at a rate from 1.6 to 19 times higher than other Canadians;
-GLBs experience depression at rates ranging from 1.8 to three times higher than average;
- Homosexual men comprise 76% of AIDS cases and 45% of all new HIV infections;
- GLB populations are at a higher risk of lung and liver cancer;
- Homosexual and bisexual men suffer a higher rate of anal cancer than heterosexual men;
- Lesbians report a higher rate of breast cancer;
- GLBs experience verbal and physical abuse at a greater rate than most Canadians.

Similar statistics have been mentioned numerous times in LifeSiteNews reports on the serious negative health consequences of homosexuality.

Read related LSN articles:

Study: Homosexual Lifestyle Strongly Linked to Depression, Suicide
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/sep/08091704.html

Study: HIV-positive Practicing Homosexual Men 9000% More Likely to Develop Anal Cancer
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/mar/07032205.html

Physician Says Science of Medical Consequences of Homosexual Behaviour is Being Trumped by Political Agenda
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2003/sep/03092008.html

Following the type of logic used here, we could conclude that being a black male is "a deadly lifestyle" by citing a study using data from certain urban neighborhoods.

You can't compare race with chosen behavior.

[dianaiad]

I believe the body count under Mao of that atheistic regime was much higher than Stalin's.

40 million murdered by Mao Zedong
20 million murdered by Joseph Stalin

However Religious murders far outperform each of them:

11,500,000 murdered in the Thirty Years' War -- Holy Roman Empire
4,000,000 murdered in the French Wars of Religion
9,000,000 murdered in the Crusades
15,000,000 murdered in the Conquest of the Americas -- Church of Spain
13,000,000 murdered in the Muslim Conquest of India
9,000,000 murdered in the witch hunts of the 16th and 17th centuries
-------------
61,500,000 total

Refs:
List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll
Massacres and Atrocities Before the 20th Century
The witch hunts of the 16th and 17th centuries

I won't even count how Hitler's religious beliefs (Christianity) was responsible for the murder of 6,000,000 Jews.

Bob

Let's see...60 million people killed by atheists in the twentieth century (and that's using your numbers, not the actual ones which are rather higher and include people other than Stalin and Mao) against 61 million by theists...and many different kinds of theists, not simply two...in two thousand years?

Yes, that is outperforming. I'm a little confused by your judgement as to who 'outperformed' whom, though.

[micatala]

Following the type of logic used here, we could conclude that being a black male is "a deadly lifestyle" by citing a study using data from certain urban neighborhoods.

You can't compare race with chosen behavior.

First off, this is a dodge and a false statement. One can certainly compare race with chosen behaviors. If you feel my particular comparison here is fallacious, please point out how.



Seconldy, you refused to address your fallacy on this position when I pointed it out in another thread, and I find it ironic you bring it up again here.







Does East of Eden believe it is OK to discriminate against people on the basis of non-immutable characteristics?




Does East of Eden support the notion that groups that have higher disease or death rates can be discriminated against wtih impunity?

[SailingCyclops]

Yes, that is outperforming. I'm a little confused by your judgement as to who 'outperformed' whom, though.

The point is that atheists have no lock on brutality as was suggested. Religion, or lack thereof has no effect on the inhumanity of man towards man.

If you compare "religious" countries with the relatively FEW "Atheist" countries however, the religious ones are responsible for the vast majority of war and destruction on the planet, whether they be religious-based wars or not. WWII was fought mainly by Christian countries, and boasts the highest mortality and destruction of any single event in recorded history.

Bob

[SailingCyclops]

Nobody has shown where any christian on this thread hates anybody, you view our objection to a lifestyle our Bible calls sin hatred.

Hate doesn't need to be expressed by words alone. Actions speak much louder. When you attempt to implement government regulations which deny human rights to a portion of the population, you are exhibiting hate towards that group.

It's one thing to disagree, it's quite another to implement forced repression. Forced repression, and denial of human rights equivocates directly to hate.

This case in New Mexico is proof that christians will be sued for their opinions and forced to bow to secular opinion.

NOT for their opinions, but for their actions! You may hold whatever opinions you wish. What you can't do is force those opinions on others; you don't have that right. Isn't that simple human decency? Not preventing others from enjoying the same rights that you enjoy? I don't get it, how is this concept so hard for you to understand? Equality? Fairness? Equal rights? Are these concepts so alien to Christianity?

Bob

[SailingCyclops]

The article ignores, for instance, what William Wilberforce and his movement did to end the slave trade and institute a long list of positive societal reforms.

Yes, slavery, an institution justified on biblical grounds in the first place. Slavery and the subsequent racism which followed existed in spades in what is known as the Bible Belt; which was and still is the most Christian part of the country.

Interesting how a similar about-face is not being done today with respect to the mistreatment of gay people, by the same folks who have admitted mistreating black people.

You mean this guy? Sounds like his plan may not have turned out so well.

"And on his deathbed, a nurse who attended him was reported to have said, "For all the wealth in Europe, I would not see another atheist die."

The physician, waiting up with Voltaire at his death, said that he cried out with utter desperation, "I am abandoned by God and man. I will give you half of what I am worth if you will give me six months of life. Then I shall go to hell and you will go with me, oh, Christ, oh, Jesus Christ!"

This is apocryphal hearsay! Invented by Christians who have a need to proselytize. Similar stuff was written about Darwin and Einstein. It's nonsense. Show some evidence for this.

Bob

[Meow Mix]

- GLB people commit suicide at rates ranging from twice as often to almost 14 times more than the general population;

Gee, I wonder if that has anything to do with hateful people like you?

In any case, I'm unimpressed by fishing for negative statistics, especially extremely dubious ones like "lesbians report higher rate of breast cancer." Something tells me any higher rate of breast cancer isn't related to lesbian sex, which has the lowest rate of STD transmission capacity.

Even if homosexuality was somehow exceedingly self-destructive even when safe sex is practiced that would still be a total non sequitor to the topic at hand. If you're going to start mandating what people can do or not based on whether it involves risk then we might as well give up our freedom to drink coffee or smoke cigarettes as well.

In any case, I doubt your statistics are considering homosexuals who engage in safe and monogamous sex. I don't think anyone denies that there is a certain subculture within homosexuality (and heterosexuality) that engages in prolific and unsafe sex. No one is surprised that such people end up damaging their health. You're not pointing out anything new or pertinant, but somehow I don't really think objectivity is your real goal anyway.

[Scotracer]

Doesn't anyone realise this is a big red herring?

The entire argument about whether or not a homosexual marriage is less harmful or not to the individuals is moot. Homosexual activity is what has its inherent risk (but that is entirely debatable given the 'information' above), but it doesn't affect society as a whole therefore matters-not.

And yes, Meow Mix, I was going to post about the suicide thing. The fact that East of Eden is even using the figure is disgusting in itself when it is attitudes like his that force these people to suicide. I am lucky that I am a strong-willed person and learned enough to see through it.

EoE's contention that you cannot liken homosexual behaviour to race is ridiculous in of itself given the only logical conclusions of his argument is that every homosexual remain celibate for their entire lives or that they somehow have a sexual relationship with someone of the opposite sex (which will undoubtedly just lead to more suicides that he himself is trying to use against homosexual marriage).