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]

I would agree the personal lives and characteristics of historical figures are usually not central and in many cases could be omitted.

On the other hand, including such "trivia" is you want to call it that is not without some merit. Noting that Newton was an alchemist (or that he spent more time writing on his rather unorthodox religious views than on his science) does have value.

I still don't see why you would mention it, if they want to start putting up heros of the gay community can we talk about Billy Graham and his beliefs?

It points out that even geniuses who produce works of great merit can also have false views and produce works that are of questionable value or even worthless. It underscores the humanity of the person. It also emphasizes that even in "historical times" there were diverse views. It let students know that people in the past were also susceptible to biases, conspriacy theories, and other irrational influences.

It has and will go further, there are schools around where I am that are starting to teach kindergartners that two mommies are normal and no different than a mom and a dad. This is where we are and moving more towards and why this law is bad news. It is part of the agenda, IMO.

I would agree with Meow Mix, you don't want to go overboard, but you also should not shy away from appropriate inclusion of controversial aspects of historical figures.

I am glad you are for not going overboard and Meow Mix is a great person and she really does not seem to have any agenda. I feel this is not typical for the movement and it goes further than saying Elton John is a singer and gay.

[Autodidact]

I am not looking for revisionist history I just don't need my child taught so and so did this and oh by the way he was gay and had a husband. Why does my child need to know that? I will not let the school decide my childs moral compass.

You prefer your child to be taught lies? Or partial truths?

If you want to shelter your children from truth and carefully expose them to anti-gay propaganda, that's also your right, but the government funded school system should not support *your* agenda.

I speak the truth, why do I have to deal with government funded gay propaganda?

Didn't you just tell us you don't want your child to be taught truths that you don't like?

[Deadclown]

I have kept a straight face because I believe it

Goodness, why?

What about the law and children getting a balanced accurate education is going to throw your children's moral compass off so much that you, as their parent, will not have more control over what they believe to be right? Or that they are going to just tack on 'the gay' whenever they get a chance? What in the law gives any indication to you that these things will be happening? You must really think little of your influence over your children.

No not at all, we talk about it in church and at home. I don't need a liberal teacher indoctrinating my child.

Oh ho. Now any teacher who gives lessons on homosexuals is automatically a liberal. You are obviously fair and unbiased. In any case, doesn't matter to you, since your children get to be indoctrinated by Christians instead. Tell me, have you seen the documentary 'Jesus Camp'? Did it strike you as a good place to send children? I am just trying to guage your level of fundamentalism.

No i just don't want the school to talk about something that is not relevant to my child learning.

Well thank goodness that we do not live in a theocracy, and I can count on my children getting taught crazy things like... accurate science and history. You can instruct your children in Creationism for all I care, but you should recognize that it will severely limit their prospects later on in life. It will also under prepare them for the real world, since they are going to have a very narrow and incomplete view of history.

Do you think your children should learn about the Crusades and the Inquisition? Or perhaps we should just remove those from the books too so that they don't get exposed to lessons that paint your religion in an unfavorable light.

We also shouldn't include anything on Islam, since it might make them go Muslim. They shouldn't learn about the racial discrimination movements and Martin Luther King Jr., because they might think it is okay to date black people.

Yes I am being facetious a bit, but I am trying to (hopefully) hit a nerve and show you how utterly ridiculous your concerns sound.

I agree

I want to say good, but I feel like this is a trap. I can practically hear Admiral Ackbar.

It is propaganda, why else would you bring up someones sexuality? They want to show how normal it is and how acceptable a lifestyle it is. That is propaganda you say anything enough and people will believe it. The goal is the church, call me paranoid I don't care but that is my view.

Ah hah! Yep. Come now ,sir. I gave you a whole page of historical information on homosexuals. You are *assuming* that they are going to gay up the classrooms every chance they get. It is all a logical fallacy (Slippery Slope) that I describe below.

I am not going to call you paranoid directly, but the view you are expressing is coming off incredibly paranoid (irrational fears). You sound like you picture this great Gay Conspiracy that just can't wait to get your kids. Who, again, aren't even an issue here since you've already segregated them away.

That fine that you would oppose it but they already do that. I think evolution is wrong and I won't let my child listen to that, it is a liberal propaganda piece.

Wow. Uh. Wow. I don't even know how to respond to that. Evolution... is a liberal propaganda piece. I'd almost think you were pulling my leg if I didn't know better.

I suppose all I can say is that I hope none of your children aim to go into any science related field, in particular biology, because their education will be sorely lacking. Of course, I also hope that by the time they are adults, homosexual discrimination will have gone the way of racial discrimination.

Also... what in the HECK, man?! Can you *please* explain to me how Evolution is a liberal conspiracy? You just sort of drop in in there casually and it blows my mind. You act like it was made up by politicians, is an America only idea, and doesn't predate a lot of the current political structure. Can you justify your statement at ALL?!

I mean, this knocked me for such a loop, I even forgot my point I was making. Which was...

As a hypothetical situation, let's say that an atheist teacher was trying to indoctrinate children with anti-Christian statements and specifically leaving out Christian elements from history. I would oppose that just as much as I oppose your present position.

First off, let's just make the *crazy* assumption that evolution has nothing to do with religion or democrats. /sarcasm

The point I was making is that bigotry involving any group should not be encouraged by our secular government. If you don't like it, then America ain't the country for you.

Sure talk about them, don't pretend they don't exist but they go much further. They say that two mommies is just as good as a mother and father, they push the lifestyle as normal and acceptable and that is where I have an issue.

Okay, now that is a really paranoid statement. You really didn't pay attention to what the law does. You say it is okay to talk about them, and not pretend like they don't exist (in addition to keeping bigotted statements out of classrooms). That is all the law really does. Anything else you are projecting on it is sheer paranoia.

Now personally, I'd earnestly hope that you and your children get greater exposure to homosexual culture and homosexuals to the point where you can recognize that two mothers or two fathers are in fact, just as good as a mother and a father (better in a lot of cases). That is after all, the direction society is going towards (thank goodness). You can fight it all you like, but it will just make you anachronistic.

No it does not do that but it teaches that the lifestyle is acceptable and they will spread that message and force it into the church as well.

I would like to introduce you to a new fallacy. It is called the 'Slippery Slope' Fallacy. You are making it in spades, and showing the irrationality of your beliefs yet again.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacie ... slope.html

The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question. In most cases, there are a series of steps or gradations between one event and the one in question and no reason is given as to why the intervening steps or gradations will simply be bypassed. This "argument" has the following form:

1. Event X has occurred (or will or might occur).
2. Therefore event Y will inevitably happen.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because there is no reason to believe that one event must inevitably follow from another without an argument for such a claim. This is especially clear in cases in which there is a significant number of steps or gradations between one event and another.

'Teaching children about homosexuals in history and current events will inevitably lead to acceptance of the culture and them forcing themselves into churches.'

You see lastcallhall, you are being irrational in your fears because you have presented no reason for a logical progression of events.

[Clownboat]

No it does not do that but it teaches that the lifestyle is acceptable and they will spread that message and force it into the church as well.

Next thing you know, they will be teaching our kids that women and blacks are our equals too! /sarcasm

Your hate is the next one to be dealt with I think, and I can only hope it will die with you and that your kids will be able to over look the bigoted indoctrination that you subjected them to (fully within your rights to do so too I freely admit). (Please note, I do not wish death on you, I only hope that the hate dies with you, I don't hope for you to die now by any means).

Let's face it, this generation is more excepting of women and blacks then say our grandparents generation. I just think you are holding on to your hate harder than some others of your generation (whatever generation that may be). Once my (and your?) generation die off, I think the world will look at the gay community much like it looks at women and blacks ect.... as our equals.

Either way, we should encourage acceptance of our fellow man.

[SailingCyclops]

It has and will go further, there are schools around where I am that are starting to teach kindergartners that two mommies are normal and no different than a mom and a dad.

Here in NY gay marriage has just been legalized. What would you suggest saying to innocent children of same sex marriages in public school when the issue comes up? It will come up, children are curious and smart, and want to know everything. Would you traumatize and frighten the child by telling it the parents are going to burn in hell, and that the child has no "real" parents? Is that what Christian tolerance and love says to do?

This is where we are and moving more towards

Yes, we are constantly moving towards a more just, civilized, and equitable society. It's called progress. Marriage equality will someday be national, International even, the same way racial equality is progressing today, it's an inevitable result of growing human enlightenment, understanding, and knowledge.

and why this law is bad news. It is part of the agenda

Actually, it's good news, it prevents harm (especially to children), and it represents a step forward for the universal human rights agenda. That's the only "agenda" going on here. An agenda you benefit from as well, no matter how hateful, and damaging to children your philosophy and politics may be. You are protected against discrimination, exclusion, and injustice just like every other citizen is. That in itself should make you happy, and provide comfort, not make you angry.

Bob

[Autodidact]

So essentially, 'the gays' (democrats actually, darn that gay conspiracy) are insisting that the culture not be specifically excluded from social studies curriculums by public schools and that there isn't bigoted statements made in PUBLIC schools by the teachers towards minorities.

It is not bigoted, I just don't want my children taught a lifestyle is acceptable that is not considered acceptable by God. I think the article I posted as well as the thread by Slope shows there is a movement to stop christians from preaching against the homosexual lifestyle.

You're not bigoted, but you think God is against my "lifestyle," despite the fact that your God does not prohibit it. O.K. So if children learn the truth about gay people in history, you're afraid they may think that homosexuality is acceptable to God? Does that make sense to you? What does your right to preach whatever you believe have to do with what is taught in public school? Do you think teachers should be able to preach in school?

Again I hate nobody,I don't care what people choose to do in private but the goal is to force the lifestyle on everyone and for everyone to accept it as normal.

Let's say your children learn all about famous gay and lesbian people like Alan Turing, Barbara Jordan, Willa Cather and Leonard Bernstein. Does that somehow force them to be gay?

[Autodidact]

Are you suggesting we indoctrinate our children to abhor homosexuality?

No, just that the lifestyle is a sin. Not to hate anybody but I don't need my kids being taught the two mommies is just as acceptable as a mother and father that fear and follow the Lord.

It's certainly your right to believe whatever you want about God. It is not your right to force that belief on other public school children. Two mom-families have the same right to exist and practice their beliefs as you do.

For example, it's been shown that children who grow up in Evangelical Christian homes are more likely to divorce, commit crimes, and drop out of high school or not complete college. That doesn't give me the right to prohibit you from having children, or teaching children about great Americans who happen to be Evangelical Christian. They are two different things.

[Autodidact]

How is correcting an injustice, and a historical innacuracy "pushing the gay agenda"??

What is currently inaccurate in the CA school books? My guess is they want to add in that so and so was gay and start talking about how normal and acceptable that is.

Well, if so and so was gay, should we lie about it? Does your religion require lying and covering up reality?

Why shouldn't the history of the gay liberation movement, from Stonewall, to DADT, to the fight for marriage equality be included in our history? It is HISTORY, it did happen, it is happening. On what basis would you exclude teaching these historical events which took place in our country?

history books don't bring up everything that happens, can we add church history? Can I add the history of my church into the books?

Are you a historian?

You know that American history talks a lot about the relationship between the Church of England and the Puritan colonists, right? You can't talk about early American history without talking about Christianity, and so it is discussed. Why not; it's reality.

Would you be OK with excluding black liberation history because there are racists who are offended by racial equality? Would you be OK excluding the womens suffrage movement because you may not agree women should vote? How is what you are complaining about any different?

They are not pushing an agenda

You don't think the African-American Civil Rights movement or the Women's movement were pushing an agenda?!?

Again can I add any history I would like to the books?

Well, for starters, it should be accurate, relevant and significant.

[SailingCyclops]

It is propaganda, why else would you bring up someones sexuality?

There are very valid reasons to do so sometimes. Specifically to put the person's activities into proper perspective. One such case would be the history of Ted Haggard, one of the most vociferous anti-gay evangelical preachers of our time. The self-loathing of his homosexual orientation, came forth in his anti-gay sermons, and his rabid anti-gay political activities. His rabid anti-gay stance can not be understood properly without knowing his sexual orientation, and it's repression.

Many Congresses members, also virulently anti-gay, have admitted they were homosexual after they were caught having homosexual affairs. When Anti-Gay Activists are Caught Being Gay, their sexual orientation is relevant, and helps explain their activities, religious, political, and sexual in a more accurate historical context.

It hardly a coincidence that some of the most anti-gay rhetoric comes from repressed homosexuals.

Bob

[lastcallhall]

You prefer your child to be taught lies? Or partial truths?

The truth and that is why I don't want a liberal teacher pushing an agenda down my childs throat.

Didn't you just tell us you don't want your child to be taught truths that you don't like?

I don't want my child taught anything against the word of God