Examining the Myth of the Gay Agenda

[OllieFranz]

For years, whenever fundamentalists decried the inroads of the "gay agenda," the rest of us have asked them to explain exactly what they meant. Other than vague warnings about gays taking over the government, we have been met with silence. Vague is a very good propaganda tool. A vague claim cannot be disproved.

But at last we have a debatable list of the goals of "the Gay Agenda," thanks to AlAyeti, who, in a recent post, linked to the Conservapedia article on The Gay Agenda.

The goals of the homosexual movement include:

1. Destroying Christian morals
* Changing the definition of marriage, even if doing so infringes on the religious rights of Christians not to recognize it as anything other than sin
2. Promote pseudoscience that legitimizes homosexuality, such as claims of a never-identified gay gene
* Censoring evidence that the "gay gene" is a hoax
3. Censoring speech against homosexuality by branding it to possibly be "hate-speech"
* Censoring biblical statements condemning homosexuality
4. Establishing affirmative action for homosexuals
5. Expand hate crimes legislation to include sexual orientation
6. Ending the military's and Boy Scout's restrictions on homosexuality
7. Stopping children as young as 5 years old from attending therapy to repair their sexual preference
8. Promote homosexuality in schools
* In places like Massachusetts and California, where the gay lobby is the strongest, it starts as early as pre-school. They tell seven- or eight-year-old boys, "If you only like boys, there's a chance you may be homosexual," or "If you only like girls, maybe you are lesbian." Well, at that age, all members of the opposite sex "have cooties."
* You're planting a seed that can totally mess up the normal development process later, when at 12 or 14, kids enter the age of sexual confusion and discovering the opposite sex.
9. Force businesses to accommodate their lifestyle
* Suing an online dating website for discrimination
10. Undermining the resolve of latent homosexuals so that their will becomes too weak to resist the temptations of homosexuality
11. Pushing for legalized adoption by gay individuals and couples

Now we can look at each of these points and discuss them, and dismiss most of them.

1. Destroying Christian morals
* Changing the definition of marriage, even if doing so infringes on the religious rights of Christians not to recognize it as anything other than sin

​

The definitions of a marriage and a family have never been stable, it has always been evolving. Marriage by rape, by buying the bride as one would a slave, multiple wives, multiple husbands, male wives, all have been acceptable at one time or another.

Neither is there any attempt to infringe on any church to define a "Christian marriage." Government recognition of marriage is different from church recognition of marriage. The government recognizes Hindu and muslim marriages, even though they are not Christian marriages. It recognizes marriages performed in secular circumstances (officiated over by mayors, JPs, even (in Nevada) Elvis impersonators). It even used to recognize common-law marriages, and any whose partners are still alive are still considered married. Likewise, the church will often recognize marriages that the government does not. Some churches will marry a US citizen and an immigrant even if the government believes the marriage is only to allow the immigrant to stay in the US. Some Mormon sects recognize plural marriages, and some "liberal" churches recognize gay marriages even when the state does not.

Civil marriage is different from religious marriage, and each is free to recognize or not recognize any given marriage without consulting one another.

Part of the evolution of civil marriage is tying it to a list of rights, obligations, benefits, taxes, privileges, and duties. Many of the things on this list are the sorts of things that have been declared to be off-limits to restrict based on certain ways of dividing the population. If a white man is subject to a certain tax, a black man, or a white woman, or a black man, in the same circumstances must be subject to that same tax.

To tie the benefits, taxes, obligations, etc. to the condition of marriage is one thing, but to then deny a portion of the population equal access to them by denying recognition of their marriages is unfair and unconstitutional. A "separate but equal" institution (civil union) has been tried in some jurisdictions, but has been proven to be less than equal. And many places do not want to accord even that much equality.

A mass murderer is granted marriage rights; as are a serial rapist, and a child molester -- name the crime, they can still have their marriages recognized civilly (and usually by Christian churches as well). So any claim that the government should not recognize their marriages is not simply naming sin; it is nothing less than bigotry and hatred. Still, it is their right to believe that and to teach it, and hate-crime legislation does not infringe on that right, any more than incitement to riot laws do. In fact, hate crime legislation deliberately has a lot less "teeth" than incitement to riot laws.

2. Promote pseudoscience that legitimizes homosexuality, such as claims of a never-identified gay gene
* Censoring evidence that the "gay gene" is a hoax

​

No one has ever spoken about a "gay gene" other than fundamentalists who are either ignorant of genetics or are deliberately misrepresenting the claim that in many cases -- possibly most cases -- orientation has a genetic component. There is no "black gene" or "native American gene" but race, and skin color are clearly inherited through the genes.

Since I already devoted not one, but two separate threads to debunking the fundamentalist stand on the "gay gene," I won't spend any more time here.

3. Censoring speech against homosexuality by branding it to possibly be "hate-speech"
* Censoring biblical statements condemning homosexuality

​

Calling homosexuality a sin, while wrong, is not hate speech. Screaming "Kill the 'f••••t'!" while your friends are beating him with tire irons is hate-speech. And even then it cannot be prosecuted unless you took a swing at him yourself.

4. Establishing affirmative action for homosexuals
​

What exactly is meant by affirmative action in this charge? If it means preferrential treatment, then I admit that I'm not entirely in agreement with affirmative action plans of this type. I prefer the type that level the playing field for everyone. It is slower to gain an equitable distribution, but less likely that any preference (one way or the other) will become entrenched.

But some sort of equity is needed. We have determined that in certain spheres of public life, discrimination on certain bases should be discouraged: race and ethnicity, religion and philosophy, age, gender, etc.

The mere fact that some groups believe it to be sin should not be an excuse to discriminate against gays. If adulterers, blasphemers and "players" or, if these sins are too "mild," pimps, prostitutes, and drug dealers are not kicked out of jobs and housing simply because they are "sinners," then why single out gays? Besides, isn't one of the main themes of the gospel message that we are all sinners?

5. Expand hate crimes legislation to include sexual orientation
​

I don't understand why this is a separate point from #3 above. In any case, the same argument applies.

6. Ending the military's and Boy Scout's restrictions on homosexuality
​

And this is a bad thing because....?

Besides, the Boy Scouts are perfectly OK enforcing whatever internal rules they choose, but if they want to do so with government funds, then those rules cannot violate the government's public policy.

Case in point: a few years ago a city in California voted to stop providing a free berth in the city marina to a Sea Scouts troop as long as the troop forbade gay members. The troop was not kicked out of the berth, they simply had to start paying rent on it. The same rent that everyone else with a berth had to pay. They took the city to court, and naturally lost. They are not entitled to special consideration, they were given it as a courtesy for the good they do. But that courtesy was abused by demanding the free berth while continuing to violate the city's policy of equal access.

7. Stopping children as young as 5 years old from attending therapy to repair their sexual preference
​

I can't believe this one. Not only do they not like that we point out that "Reparative Therapy" is both destructive and ineffective, but they insist that they want to have the right to subject children as young as 5 to its horrors!

8. Promote homosexuality in schools
* In places like Massachusetts and California, where the gay lobby is the strongest, it starts as early as pre-school. They tell seven- or eight-year-old boys, "If you only like boys, there's a chance you may be homosexual," or "If you only like girls, maybe you are lesbian." Well, at that age, all members of the opposite sex "have cooties."

​

You're kidding, right? First, seven or eight is not pre-school. Second, a typical conversation of this subject in second grade (or earlier -- or later, for that matter) would be "Why does Johnny (a classmate) have two daddies? Everyone else in the class has a daddy and a mommy?" "Well, Johnny's daddies fell in love with each other instead of with girls." [End of discussion, as the children's short attention span focuses on something else.] There is no way that that is "promoting" homosexuality, much less telling the questioner that he is probably gay.

9. Force businesses to accommodate their lifestyle
* Suing an online dating website for discrimination
​

If the business is in blatant violation of anti-discrimination laws, it should be held accountable. Especially if it denies things like health care benefits or housing subsidies which are available to other employees.

In the specific case of the dating service, I'm not sure that the lawsuit was warranted. I do not know the details of the law in that state at that time.

But in any case, the suit never went to trial. The company volunteered to make changes. I suppose that could be seen as forcing the company to change, and if the company was not in violation of discrimination laws then the lawsuit was wrong, even if the goal was admirable.

10. Undermining the resolve of latent homosexuals so that their will becomes too weak to resist the temptations of homosexuality
​

I'm not sure where to begin with this one. I have a vague idea of what the author of the article is saying, but it is so far removed from the reality, I can't find a point of common agreement to begin a refutation.

The one thing I can see is that, for once, there is a distinction made between the orientation and what they often label the "lifestyle." Still, they call someone whose orientation is gay a "latent homosexual" as if he is on a hair trigger and just waiting to snap.

11. Pushing for legalized adoption by gay individuals and couples
​

And what's wrong with that? There are millions of "unadoptable" children in this country. And like any other loving human beings, gay couples, and single persons, both gay and straight, can give their love to a child in need. If you only allow "perfect" families to adopt, then no child will be adopted.

 

[SithDoughnut]

Even if that were true, I don't disagree with any of the 'agenda' apart from 2 and possibly 7.

 

[BigBadWlf]

It is sad that the religious right must rely on false witness to even make their case

 

[RocketRed]

Conservapedia seeks to counterbalance an imagined "liberal bias" on Wikipedia with their overt, foaming-at-the-mouth radical conservatism.

We're not trying to destroy anyone. We're not trying to destroy your values. We don't want to sleep with your kids.
We just want to be treated equally under the law. That's really our only "agenda."

One would think that if we were truly that horrible, they'd actually have honest detraction against us. Some of his points are true. 3, 5 and 6 are things any given homosexual would like to see. 7 is really a matter for the APA to decide on, but if such young children are already being labeled one sexuality or the other, there's definitely something cracked going on there (not to mention the extremely dubious and potentially harmful effects of ex-gay therapy).
8 is kind of a misinterpretation of what's already happening. I assume he's referring to PFLAG and the GSA and the like. It's not gay-promotion clubs, per se, but really just organizations to raise awareness of related issues and to give a place for homosexuals in school to seek community.

The rest is rather ridiculous though.

PS: We're not a hive-mind. Nor do we have like... National Gay People Meetings to discuss our next move. We do organize into political action/activist groups, but we're far from some insidiously plotting group of agents or some such.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Even if that were true, I don't disagree with any of the 'agenda' apart from 2 and possibly 7.

Really? I disagree with 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, and possibly 7, 8, and 10.

 

[Verv]

The gay agenda does not consciously perpetrate much of the above.

I disagree with notion that the homosexual "rights" movement is conscious of the ramifications of what it is doing, as similarly most conservative movements are also ignorant of what would result from their actions.

Sure, there is little to no homosexual conspiracy.. There are just the far reaching implications of what the homosexuals will bring if they succeed in their agenda.

 

[The Penitent Man]

I think there is definitely a homosexual agenda, and if I were a homosexual I'd probably be part of it. I always try to put myself in the other person's shoes.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

The gay agenda does not consciously perpetrate much of the above.

I disagree with notion that the homosexual "rights" movement is conscious of the ramifications of what it is doing, as similarly most conservative movements are also ignorant of what would result from their actions.

Sure, there is little to no homosexual conspiracy.. There are just the far reaching implications of what the homosexuals will bring if they succeed in their agenda.

I think there is definitely a homosexual agenda, and if I were a homosexual I'd probably be part of it. I always try to put myself in the other person's shoes.

And what is the agenda, specifically? Equal rights under the law? An end to discrimination, attack, and hate?

 

[Jase]

So to sum it up - the "Gay Agenda" is wanting to be considered human and not be oppressed by the religious right. Hmm, yeah I can see now why we're evil!

 

[Beanieboy]

Anita Bryant started a campaign of Save the Children. What she was responding to was a new ordinance that made it illegal to discriminate against gay people in housing, employment, and health care coverage.

A well-organized group of conservative fundamentalist Christians responded, headed by singer Anita Bryant. Their campaign was titled Save Our Children, and Bryant claimed the ordinance infringed her right to teach her children

Harvey Milk - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What Bryant did was campaign against gay people to try and get the people to appeal and make such discrimination legal. She claimed that society, who was guilty of the discrimination themselves, were the victims.

Case in point - During the times of Harvey Milk, he had to fight against a motion to fire all gay and lesbian teachers.

However, no one looks back as someone who was fighting the good fight. They see her as one who was promoting discrimination, not just being approving of it, but doing it shamelessly, and the kicker, doing it in the name of God and dare say that she was fighting on God's side, that she was doing his work.

His work is for us to love one another, gay/straight/Christian/Muslim/Jew. In doing that, we love our neighbor. Save our Children only served to try to burden gay people, to create division between Gays and Conservative Christians, to make this into an "Us and Them" mindset between Good and Evil.

I'm am gay AND Christian. I'm not fighting against Christianity, but actively walking my faith. I am not trying to destroy the family, because I am in one, and come from one, and family is one of the most important parts of my life. Without them, there is no life. We aren't looking to be accepted or approved any more than you feel the need to ask your Christian neighbor is being Jewish is ok. I simply want to live my life and be happy, and have equal access to our resources, and then be left alone to do it. I don't want to "normalize" it, because we are different, but so are heterosexuals. I have met transgender people, transexual people, an intersexed person, and heterosexuals that don't fit the stereotypical male or female images show by the media. They don't ask for permission to exist, but rather, simply ask if they can live their lives in peace as you let yourself.

In other words, to love them as you love yourself, Christ's command. And this is a commandment and not a request.

The verses used in Leviticus to condemn gays to death shows disrespect for the Scripture, a murderous tongue for the quoter, and disrespect of God's mercy upon them. It shows a superficial reading of the text, and disregard to it. There is a lot of information on the translation, on the exact words used, the context within the chapter and book, societal normals (hospitality was extremely important back then, but not in the US culture), who was speaking, to whom, and why.

A close examination shows that it isn't talking about homosexual relationships, but of men together specifically. Abomination is also said for eating shellfish and pork (unclean). Also, at that time, there were male temple prostitutes who men would engage in sex with as part of their pagan practices.

Leviticus 20:13 states: "If a man also lie with mankind as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they should surely be put to death....". The passage is surrounded by prohibitions against incest, bestiality, adultery and intercourse during a woman's period. But this verse is the only one in the series which uses the religious term abomination; it seems also to be directed against temple prostitution.

These passages are part of the Jewish Holiness Code which also:

permits polygamy
prohibits sexual intercourse when a woman has her period,
bans tattoos
prohibits eating rare meat
bans wearing clothes that are made from a blend of textiles
prohibits cross-breeding livestock
bans sowing a field with mixed seed
prohibits eating pigs, rabbits, or some forms of seafood
requires Saturday to be reserved as the Sabbath
Churches have abandoned the Holiness Code; it is no longer binding on modern-day Christians. They can wear tattoos, eat shrimp, wear polyester-cotton blends and engage in temple prostitution without violating this particular section of the Bible. Although this code is obsolete for Christians, many clergy still focus on those passages which deal with homosexuality.

Since the Christian church does not follow the Holiness Code it has no right to arbitrarily pick Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13-14 as still binding just because it seems to support a particular prejudice.

Whosoever Magazine

Sodom and Gomorrah weren't destroyed because of homosexuality. God was going to destroy the cities before Lot even went in. Ezekiel lists the sins of the cities.
Ezekiel 16-49-50
'Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.

It also lists sexually immoral, and gang raping (not having homosexual sex) two angels was a sign of extreme disrespect to God, and the visitors. In prison, one man will overpower and sodomize him to put the other in a place of submission, and they both probably claim that they are heterosexual.

What is my personal agenda?

I can adopt kids, but I want my child to be able to go to school without other children harrassing or threatening them because he or she has two dads. I don't want them to have to suffer because of the hatred that was taught to them by their parents - that God hates gay people, that they are sick, they are wrong, they are the invisible enemy trying to destroy the family and America. I have a FT job, AND take graduate classes. I don't even have time to take over the world.

I want to be able to be seen as Craig, rather than simply a label of homosexual. I want to be seen as a Christian brother, even though our views of homosexuality may greatly differ. I want the brother or sister in Christ to realize that we are not on polar sides, but the we BOTH want to do the will of God. We are on the same side. I want to feel sAfe in class, walking home, rather than knowing that in the society, killing you to some people is doing God's Word (a killer once quoted Lev.), the if God hates you, why should they, or that you aren't worthy to live, and less than human.

I want that you acknowledge that gay people have families. I'm not just talking about me and my partner. I am talking about me having two brothers, two sisters, a mom and a dad whom I love very much, whom I am a part of. To destroy families would be to destroy mine, and it is the most important thing to me in the world.

And I want Christians to stop saying that I can't be Christian and Gay, because I am. When they claim that God Hates Gays, they have sinned against God, because God loves all of us so much, and calls all of us to him. When Christians say that I can't be forgiven for what they see as sin, they are negatiing the Crucifixtion. They are suggesting that one must do something in order to be worthy of salvation, and validate it by their actions. This is a blasphemy. God loves us first, in mercy. God offers salvation freely, simply for asking for it. And those who claim one must repent of all sin to be saved is declaring themselves unsaved, because we sin every day because of our human nature. It also places a huge burden upon the gay person that the Straight Christian does not ask of themselves. They forgive their own sin, while condemning gay people.

See the Parable of the Master who forgave a man a large debt.

It is my agenda to preach the true message of Christ, which is not to fight against the darkness, and especially not to point to others, label yourself light and the other darkness. The message was said at the Last Supper, "An all men shall know that you are my disciples, by the love you have for one another." That is far more important than focusing on sin. If you have only NOT killed someone, that isn't a productive day that pleases God. What pleases God is when we actively go out into the world, and offer love, patience, kindness, hope, to everyone we speak to. We offer without asking in return. We humble ourselves before others as a reminder that it was Christ, not ourselves who saved us. My agenda is to spread love and light into a world that is full of so much darkness, so much hatred and resentment, to be the light of world, the salt of the earth, the city on a hill, and change the world.

Is that so bad?

 

[CreedIsChrist]

Im so tired of these long(number and answer) each objection OPs. They drone on forever, like most threads about homosexuality..

Homosexuals DO have an agenda. Otherwise there wouldn't be organizations like GLAAD and an LGBT project wing of the ACLU. Whenever you goto the supreme court or the senator you obviously have some sort of an agenda you want to be looked at..Gay marriage would never have been an issue if the gay communities didn't have some sort of an agenda. They're numerous acts of religious desecration don't help them much either..Christians have an agenda too, I don't deny it. Without an agenda we would be directionless. The question, rather should be, whether the agenda is good or bad.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cD7Ccdm4z-4

 

[RocketRed]

I want to be able to be seen as Craig, rather than simply a label of homosexual. I want to be seen as a Christian brother, even though our views of homosexuality may greatly differ. I want the brother or sister in Christ to realize that we are not on polar sides, but the we BOTH want to do the will of God. We are on the same side. I want to feel sAfe in class, walking home, rather than knowing that in the society, killing you to some people is doing God's Word (a killer once quoted Lev.), the if God hates you, why should they, or that you aren't worthy to live, and less than human.

I want that you acknowledge that gay people have families. I'm not just talking about me and my partner. I am talking about me having two brothers, two sisters, a mom and a dad whom I love very much, whom I am a part of. To destroy families would be to destroy mine, and it is the most important thing to me in the world.

And I want Christians to stop saying that I can't be Christian and Gay, because I am. When they claim that God Hates Gays, they have sinned against God, because God loves all of us so much, and calls all of us to him. When Christians say that I can't be forgiven for what they see as sin, they are negatiing the Crucifixtion. They are suggesting that one must do something in order to be worthy of salvation, and validate it by their actions. This is a blasphemy. God loves us first, in mercy. God offers salvation freely, simply for asking for it. And those who claim one must repent of all sin to be saved is declaring themselves unsaved, because we sin every day because of our human nature. It also places a huge burden upon the gay person that the Straight Christian does not ask of themselves. They forgive their own sin, while condemning gay people.

See the Parable of the Master who forgave a man a large debt.

It is my agenda to preach the true message of Christ, which is not to fight against the darkness, and especially not to point to others, label yourself light and the other darkness. The message was said at the Last Supper, "An all men shall know that you are my disciples, by the love you have for one another." That is far more important than focusing on sin. If you have only NOT killed someone, that isn't a productive day that pleases God. What pleases God is when we actively go out into the world, and offer love, patience, kindness, hope, to everyone we speak to. We offer without asking in return. We humble ourselves before others as a reminder that it was Christ, not ourselves who saved us. My agenda is to spread love and light into a world that is full of so much darkness, so much hatred and resentment, to be the light of world, the salt of the earth, the city on a hill, and change the world.

Is that so bad?

Loved the whole post, but I wanted to emphasize this.
This is beautiful and magnificent and wonderful.
Absolutely fantastic. If I could give you like... double-reps, I totally would.

 

[Verv]

And what is the agenda, specifically? Equal rights under the law? An end to discrimination, attack, and hate?

It is centered around equal rights under the law, which I agree with, though I disagree with the notion of gay marriage.

Ending discrimination, attacks and hate is also part of it -- and those are all good goals.

However, people begin overstepping bounds by trying to now put gay activists in the same light as civil rights activists and the likes. That is an exaggeration.

There are also issues with how the homosexuals will choose to represent themselves more often than not, and how they would represent themselves to school kids, etc.

I have given it more thought and I think what is probably more damaging to society than the homosexual 'agenda' is the way our society currently views sex and marriage in general.

This is a tough nut to crack.

 

[OllieFranz]

Im so tired of these long(number and answer) each objection OPs. They drone on forever, like most threads about homosexuality..

Homosexuals DO have an agenda. Otherwise there wouldn't be organizations like GLAAD and an LGBT project wing of the ACLU. Whenever you goto the supreme court or the senator you obviously have some sort of an agenda you want to be looked at..Gay marriage would never have been an issue if the gay communities didn't have some sort of an agenda. They're numerous acts of religious desecration don't help them much either..Christians have an agenda too, I don't deny it. Without an agenda we would be directionless. The question, rather should be, whether the agenda is good or bad.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cD7Ccdm4z-4

And littering, foul language and general obnoxiousness are nothing compared violence and murder. How many skulls of gay men have you crushed with tire irons? None, right? I do not measure the worth of an idea (or a movement) by the behavior of a few individuals who go out of their way to be confrontational (or worse), and neither should you.

 

[CreedIsChrist]

And littering, foul language and general obnoxiousness are nothing compared violence and murder. How many skulls of gay men have you crushed with tire irons? None, right? I do not measure the worth of an idea (or a movement) by the behavior of a few individuals who go out of their way to be confrontational (or worse), and neither should you.

Violence and murder? Come on, homosexuals are not the victims. If they are in advantage, they will take advantage, like they did with young boys in Pagan Rome and Babylon..Who were the victims back then??

 

[BigBadWlf]

The gay agenda does not consciously perpetrate much of the above.

I disagree with notion that the homosexual "rights" movement is conscious of the ramifications of what it is doing, as similarly most conservative movements are also ignorant of what would result from their actions.

Sure, there is little to no homosexual conspiracy.. There are just the far reaching implications of what the homosexuals will bring if they succeed in their agenda.

Can you provide specific real world examples of these implied negative implications ?

 

[BigBadWlf]

Im so tired of these long(number and answer) each objection OPs. They drone on forever, like most threads about homosexuality..

Homosexuals DO have an agenda. Otherwise there wouldn't be organizations like GLAAD and an LGBT project wing of the ACLU. Whenever you goto the supreme court or the senator you obviously have some sort of an agenda you want to be looked at..Gay marriage would never have been an issue if the gay communities didn't have some sort of an agenda. They're numerous acts of religious desecration don't help them much either..Christians have an agenda too, I don't deny it. Without an agenda we would be directionless. The question, rather should be, whether the agenda is good or bad.

Many are tired of the false claims and logical fallacies of the religious right that…not surprisingly…occur in most threads about homosexuality. Like the claim that gays and lesbians are not victims of violence

 

[Beanieboy]

Loved the whole post, but I wanted to emphasize this.
This is beautiful and magnificent and wonderful.
Absolutely fantastic. If I could give you like... double-reps, I totally would.

That's flattering, and not to sound like I'm accepting a Grammy, but the reps all go to God. That is all the work of the HS on my heart and allowing God to work through my life. I don't mean for it in any way to draw attention to myself, but rather, it is a plea that the HS has weighed on my heart for Christians to really wake up and take a good look at ourselves. No longer are we Fishers of Men, but Bouncers of the Boat, acting as if the fish on jumping on board, and we, the holy ones, appoint ourselves judge and decide who is and isn't worthy to be called Christian, to be one of us, to be granted love and forgiveness and mercy.

It is disturbing to me that gay Christians in the 80s, after they were told by many churches that they were not welcome to come to worship, had to go and make their own church, the MCC, All God's Children. As a gay Christian, I don't struggle against my faith with those who are atheist, or of another religion. My burden and struggle is with fellow Christians who demand that I answer for myself, again, thinking they are worthy to be my judge. They may quote a verse gleefully, claiming that the bible states that I will not inherit the Kingdom. Would the Good Shepherd, when a sheep is lost, rejoice, and say, "Good riddence"? Does the Father rejoice when the Prodigal Son leaves, or returns? And of the son who stays with the Father, the son, although being obedient and not leaving, actually seems resentful when his own brother returns, resentful that he was never given a party like this, thinking about himself, rather than rejoicing at his brother's return.

Jesus said that "by this all men will know that you are my disciples, by the love you show for one another." If we are not known that way, then we are lost. If we are using gay people to have a common enemy, of whom to hate, whom to disrespect, whom to burden, whom to fear, whom to use as a scapegoat, we are not following God. We are not loving our neighbor as ourselves. If we are not loving our neighbor, we are not loving God. We are lost.

"The Gay Agenda" is used to justify burdening gay people by barring them access to legal marriage that they enjoy themselves, to deceive people with fear and slander and untruths in order to control them, to justify why the Christian is not treating his gay neighbor as himself by trying to disqualify him from God's Child, from the human family through derogatory names or second class citizenship, or through the misuse of Scripture, making Christianity synonymous with Condemnation, rather than Salvation.

During the appearance of AIDS, Christians should have been in the forefront to care for the sick without prejudice, with compassion. Instead, they greeted the sick with condemnation, and blamed the person for their own demise, said it was God's Judgment. Extremists will go one further, and show up at the funeral with signs that say the person is burning in hell to all of the grieving survivors, often to the dismay of society, but whose message they secretly believe in their hearts, thinking that there is no place for homosexuals in heaven, that Jesus sacrifice is not strong enough for such people. In the story of the Sheep and the Goats, the goats didn't care for the sick, and in so, did not care for Christ.

During the Civil Rights movements, some churches stood behind those who were oppressed, and fought, even risked their lives, to stand up against injustice and discrimination. Other churches remained segregated, fought against the oppressed, and laid every roadblock they could, and turned to the bible to support it, with no shame.

Christians should be known by all people for our love for others. We should be servants unto mankind. We should be known for the Fruit of the Spirit. If we are not, then we need to seek the Holy Spirit and find our way back on the path.

There are a great many Christians that live Christ, that live his mercy for others, extend love without demanding something in return. At the same time, there is a great number that have mirrored the world. The World may feel hatred for gay people, and such christians say that God hates gay people. The World calls gay people derogatory and harmful names to attempt to dehumanize them, and the people of the church call them repropates, sick, abominations, or worse, as with one board, the exact same names the World uses, which are not allowed here. The difference? "I'm doing it in love." Tough love, thinking that by being cruel, by being mocking, by condemning the person to hell, they are somehow helping the person, and mirroring those of the world.

The World will go out, have too many beers, then decide to play Smear the Queer, where you go beat up, or even kill, a gay person for entertainment. The mirroring Christians will quote Leviticus, and imply that gays deserve death, even according to God. They will use it as a death threat for coworkers, as one man did, reducing his relationship to Jesus as a death threat to his gay coworker, and thinking because it was Scripture, it was loving, it was his right, it was what the bible message was about. And some murderers, even now, who have been caught, will not admit guilt for murdering the gay person, claiming that God approves because of Leviticus, a book they don't even follow themselves.

To him, murder is moral and two people of the same sex loving each other is immoral.

When it comes to such a blatant example of the Faith gone wrong, we really have to question who we are following, the God of Love, the God of the Bible, or willfully following Satan, full of condemnation, mistrust, gleeful in the damnation of others with their separation of God, arrogance, spite, slander, fracturing of the church, judgment on others while we enjoy forgiveness and mercy that we don't deserve.

We are to be a Light unto the World, to illuminate the darkness and lead people away from it. We are to be the Salt of the Earth, to give it rich flavour, not to use the salt to pour into the wound and make it hurt a little more. We are to help our neighbor with his burden, not add to by demanding he shoulder all of the weight, freeing ourselves.

This is not the current state of Christianity, nor the Christian reputation. The real threat of the Gay Agenda is that the lies that there is one, and how gays want to destroy society, clearly demonstrates those who quote it use lies to accomplish their goals, and who is the Prince of Lies?

 

[Beanieboy]

Im so tired of these long(number and answer) each objection OPs. They drone on forever, like most threads about homosexuality..

Homosexuals DO have an agenda. Otherwise there wouldn't be organizations like GLAAD and an LGBT project wing of the ACLU. Whenever you goto the supreme court or the senator you obviously have some sort of an agenda you want to be looked at..Gay marriage would never have been an issue if the gay communities didn't have some sort of an agenda. They're numerous acts of religious desecration don't help them much either..Christians have an agenda too, I don't deny it. Without an agenda we would be directionless. The question, rather should be, whether the agenda is good or bad.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cD7Ccdm4z-4

So much of what the guy ripping the pages of the bible is saying are bleeped out that it is hard to follow.

Is what he doing okay? It depends on where he is coming from. From a a-religious standpoint? Yes. If the U.S. were to someone have a majority of people who were Muslim, and those people were trying to make everyone only able to worship Allah, saying that Christians worshipping the Judeo-Christian God is an assault on their religion, or against the Quran, don't you think that there would be at least one angered Christian that would find a Quran and burn it in front of their oppressor, or tear pages from it as a display of their disregard for their oppressors sacred book, that infringes upon their right to worship as they chose?

If he was a gay Christian, would that be ok? Of course not. The man is being reactionary. There is a protest to prevent the man from being able to legally marry another man. In anger that the bible is used in the legal sector against his personal life, he is showing the protesters the extent of his disregard and rebellion to the injustice.

However, it is disrespectful, and only does one thing - infuriates the other side, who is happy about this kind of reaction, because the protesters can then put this on youtube, and feign that they are the victims here, that gay people are the 'other' that they are protesting against, who are the threat, who are rude and vulgar. They deceitfully use isolated incidences like this and suggest that this is common place.

When I was in Minneapolis, during the Pride Parade, there were always about 4 people who were the lone protesters. They made huge signs calling gays hated by God, punishable by death, etc. Of the almost 200,000 people that showed up, most of them would just glare at the group who were yelling with such hatred, or would simply role their eyes and sign with resentment. People may have asked them to be quiet, may have yelled back at them, but for the most part, they were ignored and thought to be ignorant. Because they mirror the hatred of the World towards gays so well, they seem to be The World as a wolf in sheep's clothing, daring to call themselves Christians while spewing hatred.

After about an hour or more, one of the marchers saw the man protesting. She was angered. She has probably heard these hateful messages literally thousands of times, and most often by those within Christianity who seem to think that the cruxt of the bible is "don't be a homo." She ran over to the guys with the signs, ripped them from their hands, ripped them in half, and through her hands in the air in triumph. The crowd didn't cheer. Most were saying, "This is exactly what they want!" They want to provoke this kind of reaction, get it on tape, upload it to youtube, then claim that they had done nothing wrong, that it was unprovoked, and that this was common place in the event, a celebration of evil, a scene of Sodom and Gomorrah. On the contrary, most of it is a very happy, celebratory time, not one of confrontation, intimidation, or disrespect. In fact, there were at least 30 groups that were either gay Christians, or Churches that welcomed gays.

I have recently been reading Bulletproof Faith. The lesbian author was asked about what she would say to the "other side" when they were protesting about an event that excluded homosexuals from the Christian event. She said, "There is no other side. I am Christian, and I serve Christ. They simply have a different opinion, and I am drawing attention to it. But they are not the enemy. They are my brother or sister in Christ."

It is the insistence that gays are enemies of God and Christians that is a lie, that allows the lie to be believed, that makes the slander easier to swallow, that makes the lack of love shown toward gay people easier to justify, that is happening in this clip.

They want this. They want the divide, the ripping out of pages of the Bible, because it fuels their cause, it can be used to say, "See? This is what we are fighting against" and not taking any accountability in provoking it. They want this to happen.

As a Christian, the Scripture is the word of God, and it is not to be used as a weapon to harm others, to burden others, like the Pharisees of Jesus' day did, according to the Gospel. The Bible, on the other hand, the book itself, is made by man. Someone in a factory made the pages, printed the pages, bound the book. The man tearing the book is simply tearing a book.

If, however, one is trying to provoke such a reaction, or hoping for such a reaction to try to justify one's own lack of love toward their neighbor, one is doing more than tearing pages from a book. They are taking the Scripture itself, and changing salvation with condemnation, not humbling themselves, but exalting themselves by pointing to others and saying, "YOU are a sinner." They are implying that they are special, chosen, have earned God's love, when the bible says that no one earns it, but rather, that it is given by God in mercy and love.

And that is worse than simply tearing pages of a book. It is leaving the book intact, and quoting from it as Satan did when trying to tempt Jesus in the wilderness, twisting the Scripture for their own gains, and in so, committing a far more sacrilige than the one tearing the book.

When I was a boy, I fought all the time with my brother, John. When we would really get into it, we would be pulled apart. I would say, "But he started it!"

My mom would answer - "I don't care who started it. I don't want you fighting."

If this was my mom's answer to a child's defense in trying to justify something he knew was wrong, how much great will God's Judgment be, when one comes before God, trying to justify what they know in their hearts to be wrong, know in their hearts that they are provoking, being deceitful about, but trying to justify it on a target who is weaker politically, socially, and religiously, and dare claim they were doing it to serve God.

Even if my brother were to try to provoke me by saying my mom loved him more, would my mother approve. She told us not to fight - period. She wanted us to get along.

Until we stop creating Us and Them, we will continue on the same cycle, and it will benefit no one but our own ego.

 

[Penumbra]

For years, whenever fundamentalists decried the inroads of the "gay agenda," the rest of us have asked them to explain exactly what they meant. Other than vague warnings about gays taking over the government, we have been met with silence. Vague is a very good propaganda tool. A vague claim cannot be disproved.

But at last we have a debatable list of the goals of "the Gay Agenda," thanks to AlAyeti, who, in a recent post, linked to the Conservapedia article on The Gay Agenda.



Now we can look at each of these points and discuss them, and dismiss most of them.

1. Destroying Christian morals
* Changing the definition of marriage, even if doing so infringes on the religious rights of Christians not to recognize it as anything other than sin

​

The definitions of a marriage and a family have never been stable, it has always been evolving. Marriage by rape, by buying the bride as one would a slave, multiple wives, multiple husbands, male wives, all have been acceptable at one time or another.

Neither is there any attempt to infringe on any church to define a "Christian marriage." Government recognition of marriage is different from church recognition of marriage. The government recognizes Hindu and muslim marriages, even though they are not Christian marriages. It recognizes marriages performed in secular circumstances (officiated over by mayors, JPs, even (in Nevada) Elvis impersonators). It even used to recognize common-law marriages, and any whose partners are still alive are still considered married. Likewise, the church will often recognize marriages that the government does not. Some churches will marry a US citizen and an immigrant even if the government believes the marriage is only to allow the immigrant to stay in the US. Some Mormon sects recognize plural marriages, and some "liberal" churches recognize gay marriages even when the state does not.

Civil marriage is different from religious marriage, and each is free to recognize or not recognize any given marriage without consulting one another.

Part of the evolution of civil marriage is tying it to a list of rights, obligations, benefits, taxes, privileges, and duties. Many of the things on this list are the sorts of things that have been declared to be off-limits to restrict based on certain ways of dividing the population. If a white man is subject to a certain tax, a black man, or a white woman, or a black man, in the same circumstances must be subject to that same tax.

To tie the benefits, taxes, obligations, etc. to the condition of marriage is one thing, but to then deny a portion of the population equal access to them by denying recognition of their marriages is unfair and unconstitutional. A "separate but equal" institution (civil union) has been tried in some jurisdictions, but has been proven to be less than equal. And many places do not want to accord even that much equality.

A mass murderer is granted marriage rights; as are a serial rapist, and a child molester -- name the crime, they can still have their marriages recognized civilly (and usually by Christian churches as well). So any claim that the government should not recognize their marriages is not simply naming sin; it is nothing less than bigotry and hatred. Still, it is their right to believe that and to teach it, and hate-crime legislation does not infringe on that right, any more than incitement to riot laws do. In fact, hate crime legislation deliberately has a lot less "teeth" than incitement to riot laws.

2. Promote pseudoscience that legitimizes homosexuality, such as claims of a never-identified gay gene
* Censoring evidence that the "gay gene" is a hoax

​

No one has ever spoken about a "gay gene" other than fundamentalists who are either ignorant of genetics or are deliberately misrepresenting the claim that in many cases -- possibly most cases -- orientation has a genetic component. There is no "black gene" or "native American gene" but race, and skin color are clearly inherited through the genes.

Since I already devoted not one, but two separate threads to debunking the fundamentalist stand on the "gay gene," I won't spend any more time here.

3. Censoring speech against homosexuality by branding it to possibly be "hate-speech"
* Censoring biblical statements condemning homosexuality

​

Calling homosexuality a sin, while wrong, is not hate speech. Screaming "Kill the 'f••••t'!" while your friends are beating him with tire irons is hate-speech. And even then it cannot be prosecuted unless you took a swing at him yourself.

4. Establishing affirmative action for homosexuals
​

What exactly is meant by affirmative action in this charge? If it means preferrential treatment, then I admit that I'm not entirely in agreement with affirmative action plans of this type. I prefer the type that level the playing field for everyone. It is slower to gain an equitable distribution, but less likely that any preference (one way or the other) will become entrenched.

But some sort of equity is needed. We have determined that in certain spheres of public life, discrimination on certain bases should be discouraged: race and ethnicity, religion and philosophy, age, gender, etc.

The mere fact that some groups believe it to be sin should not be an excuse to discriminate against gays. If adulterers, blasphemers and "players" or, if these sins are too "mild," pimps, prostitutes, and drug dealers are not kicked out of jobs and housing simply because they are "sinners," then why single out gays? Besides, isn't one of the main themes of the gospel message that we are all sinners?

5. Expand hate crimes legislation to include sexual orientation
​

I don't understand why this is a separate point from #3 above. In any case, the same argument applies.

6. Ending the military's and Boy Scout's restrictions on homosexuality
​

And this is a bad thing because....?

Besides, the Boy Scouts are perfectly OK enforcing whatever internal rules they choose, but if they want to do so with government funds, then those rules cannot violate the government's public policy.

Case in point: a few years ago a city in California voted to stop providing a free berth in the city marina to a Sea Scouts troop as long as the troop forbade gay members. The troop was not kicked out of the berth, they simply had to start paying rent on it. The same rent that everyone else with a berth had to pay. They took the city to court, and naturally lost. They are not entitled to special consideration, they were given it as a courtesy for the good they do. But that courtesy was abused by demanding the free berth while continuing to violate the city's policy of equal access.

7. Stopping children as young as 5 years old from attending therapy to repair their sexual preference
​

I can't believe this one. Not only do they not like that we point out that "Reparative Therapy" is both destructive and ineffective, but they insist that they want to have the right to subject children as young as 5 to its horrors!

8. Promote homosexuality in schools
* In places like Massachusetts and California, where the gay lobby is the strongest, it starts as early as pre-school. They tell seven- or eight-year-old boys, "If you only like boys, there's a chance you may be homosexual," or "If you only like girls, maybe you are lesbian." Well, at that age, all members of the opposite sex "have cooties."

​

You're kidding, right? First, seven or eight is not pre-school. Second, a typical conversation of this subject in second grade (or earlier -- or later, for that matter) would be "Why does Johnny (a classmate) have two daddies? Everyone else in the class has a daddy and a mommy?" "Well, Johnny's daddies fell in love with each other instead of with girls." [End of discussion, as the children's short attention span focuses on something else.] There is no way that that is "promoting" homosexuality, much less telling the questioner that he is probably gay.

9. Force businesses to accommodate their lifestyle
* Suing an online dating website for discrimination
​

If the business is in blatant violation of anti-discrimination laws, it should be held accountable. Especially if it denies things like health care benefits or housing subsidies which are available to other employees.

In the specific case of the dating service, I'm not sure that the lawsuit was warranted. I do not know the details of the law in that state at that time.

But in any case, the suit never went to trial. The company volunteered to make changes. I suppose that could be seen as forcing the company to change, and if the company was not in violation of discrimination laws then the lawsuit was wrong, even if the goal was admirable.

10. Undermining the resolve of latent homosexuals so that their will becomes too weak to resist the temptations of homosexuality
​

I'm not sure where to begin with this one. I have a vague idea of what the author of the article is saying, but it is so far removed from the reality, I can't find a point of common agreement to begin a refutation.

The one thing I can see is that, for once, there is a distinction made between the orientation and what they often label the "lifestyle." Still, they call someone whose orientation is gay a "latent homosexual" as if he is on a hair trigger and just waiting to snap.

11. Pushing for legalized adoption by gay individuals and couples
​

And what's wrong with that? There are millions of "unadoptable" children in this country. And like any other loving human beings, gay couples, and single persons, both gay and straight, can give their love to a child in need. If you only allow "perfect" families to adopt, then no child will be adopted.

Good post.

Conservapedia is so odd that if I didn't know better, I'd assume it was a parody of the religious right, not actually the religious right.

-Lyn