The Gay Agenda - from cd set "Goodbye Religious Liberty?" (a small portion of speech)

Sounds like typical reactionary paranoia to me. As far as I understand the situation, gays want equal rights. Not better, preferential rights, just an end to discrimination, religious or secular. The freedom to chastise and persecute people with a different, non-harmful, sexual persuasion is not a freedom that enlists my support. You have been warned.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Well, I guess my position is this. It is for each of us to decide how to live our lives, gay or straight. And for God to dispose of our souls. On our journey to that destination, we are commanded to love each other, not discriminate against each other.

And, FWIW, my guess is that those who love, and love unconditionally, will at the end of days find more favour than those who usurp God's Judgement for themselves, and conspire to make of other people's rightly autonomous lives a misery.

Cheers, 2RM.

Those gays, having the audacity to be treated as people, such a nefarious agenda.

And next you'll tell me that women and black people want to vote!

-CryptoLutheran

Scripture is clear concerning the practice of homosexuality's being strictly forbidden to Christians. Just as murder, theft, adultery, and other sins are to be shunned, the practice of homosexuality is also to be shunned.. We are neither to engage in such actions, nor are we to approve of such actions. If anyone insists that Christianity is to accept the homosexual lifestyle as overriding Christian morals, we are to firmly oppose such efforts. This includes both those who call themselves Christians while stating that we are to approve of homosexuality, and those who are outside the church while criticizing Christianity's adherence to a strict moral code which excludes homosexuality.

However, our focus is to be directed at those who call themselves fellow Christians while insisting that we abandon our moral code in order to accept homosexuality as 'alternative normal'. Those outside the church are the sole responsibility of God himself to judge, while those inside the church are to be made aware that such departures from what we are taught in Scripture will not only not be accepted, but also not tolerated:

I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people - not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother, but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.

What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. (I Corinthians 5:9-13a,NIV)

Those who did not identify themselves as being Christians were to be left to God's judgement. Instead, the moral code associated with Christianity was to be followed by those who identified themselves as fellow Christians. And it was Jesus Christ himself who warned his disciples of those motivations and actions which they were to avoid as a consequence of this moral code:

He went on, "What comes out of a man is what makes him 'unclean.' For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and make a man 'unclean.' " (The Gospel of St. Mark 7:20-23,NIV)

Those who have truly accepted Jesus Christ and his atoning sacrifice are to accept that he also gave us a moral code to be followed. Out of respect and gratitude for the sacrifice which Jesus made on our behalf, it is only fitting that we Christians follow as best we can the moral code which he gave us. However, while we ourselves accept this moral code as our path to follow, we are also to recognize that there is a world beyond the church where other moral codes, and even amoral codes, exist, which those outside the church have determined to themselves follow. We are to leave all judgement of such people to God alone; it is he who is the determiner of their ultimate fate, not we ourselves.

say your against gay marriage, and suddenly you want to oppress all homosexuals as sub-humans.

Say you're against abortion, and suddenly you're waging a war on women.

Disagree with the President, and suddenly you're a racist.

The bible in this matter is clear. Love thy neighbor, but don't enable either. You can't merely wash your hands by saying, "I'm not to judge. Not my mess. None of my business." Just an excuse to be a lazy, weak-willed Christian.


To the original poster: How sad is it that a post wanting to discus how religious freedoms are being eroded away for secular thinking and agendas, the "faithful" attack you for daring to speak out against a secular agenda.

sorednax said:

The bible in this matter is clear. Love thy neighbor, but don't enable either. You can't merely wash your hands by saying, "I'm not to judge. Not my mess. None of my business." Just an excuse to be a lazy, weak-willed Christian.

Click to expand...

I'm quite happy to judge. I just feel the sin is in those who want to make people's lives a misery, on account of their sexuality. Nothing lazy or weak-willed about being pro equal treatment before the law, and championing the extention of human rights to all, irrespective of race, creed, colour, sex and sexuality.

sorednax said:

To the original poster: How sad is it that a post wanting to discus how religious freedoms are being eroded away for secular thinking and agendas, the "faithful" attack you for daring to speak out against a secular agenda.

Click to expand...

'Scuse me for butting in, but the freedom to discriminate on the basis of ancient prejudices is not a freedom we should want anything to do with, at all.

Cheers, 2RM.

I just feel the sin is in those who want to make people's lives a misery, on account of their sexuality. Nothing lazy or weak-willed about being pro equal treatment before the law, and championing the extension of human rights to all, irrespective of race, creed, colour, sex and sexuality.

Click to expand...

Please, do tell how their lives are so "miserable." Is it because they can't parade around....ohhh no, they can do that. Are they forbidden to engage in consensual sex with one another? Ohhh, no, they can do that too. Surely, they must ride the back of the bus, barred from restaurants, can drink out of gay water-fountains only, right? No, none of those either. I suppose if they're attacked for being gay their not protected under "hate crime" laws? No, they have that. Maybe they can't get a job? No plenty of gays working these days. So please, elaborate on the sorrow and woes of today's homosexual community. Tell us of their insurmountable obstacles. Speak to us of their plight.

Here's what I find miserable:
A mother watching her child die from an incurable disease.
Children going hungry
Families being evicted from their homes
A severe storm wiping out an entire community
Husbands and wives returning home from the war in caskets.

denial of same-sex marriage? not miserable. An inconvenient bi-product of an "alternative lifestyle."

I suppose if we expand on your equality thing, why limit social conventions to same sex marriage? Why not polygamy? Pedophilia? inappropriate behavior with animals? Incest? Hey, as long as it's all consensual right? Where do you draw the line and why do you draw it there? Stop imposing your beliefs on the happiness of others.

**Edit - additional** I'll tell you the same thing I tell pro-abortion supporters who "fight against the war on women." Concerning your righteous indignation, Human rights and moral authority, why play it safe here in America? Want to make a stand against the miserable conditions for homosexuals? Go to countries where being a homosexual puts you in prison or killed. Fight for their basic human rights there. Fighting over same-sex marriage in America and liking yourself to activism is just b.s. posturing. If you want to build a global home of homosexual tolerance and equal rights, same sex marriage in the most free country in the world would equate to polishing that houses mail box. Gee, good work there.

sorednax said:

Where do you draw the line and why do you draw it there? Stop imposing your beliefs on the happiness of others.

Click to expand...

Despite the rhetoric preceeding it, this is a fair question. I draw the line at causing harm, physically or mentally. Like JS Mill, and many others, I see no sense in preventing 'alternative lifestyles', provided they do not harm anyone else. Freedom is a precious thing, and we should not deny it to people we disagree with, without good reason, or way may find that our own freedoms are denied to us in turn on similarly specious grounds.

As for 'imposing my beliefs' - well the hypocrisy of that injunction quite takes my breath away. I am not imposing my beliefs at all, merely pointing out that the 'Gay Agenda' seeks only to be free of irrational, fundamentalist restrictions and to be allowed live as they please, with equality of treatment to heterosexuals. You people are the ones insisting on the right to impose your beliefs. You want the freedom to deny others their freedom. I do not think you should be allowed it. The gay agenda has natural justice going for it, and nothing but bigoted prejudice against it. I cannot see the problem.

Or, seeing as I have answered your fair question, perhaps you will answer mine. It is this. What reason do you have to deny homosexuals equal legal rights, in respect of marriage or anything else? Bible won't do, by the way. I can read as well as anyone else. I want to know the underlying rationale for discriminating against homosexuals, if, indeed, there is one.

Finally, I agree with many of the things you find miserable. And while we waste our time on this issue, real problems are going unaddressed by the Christian community. It's about time we sorted this out, acknowledged homosexuality as just one of those things that some people do, and got on with saving the world.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Or, seeing as I have answered your fair question, perhaps you will answer mine. It is this. What reason do you have to deny homosexuals equal legal rights, in respect of marriage or anything else? Bible won't do, by the way. I can read as well as anyone else. I want to know the underlying rationale for discriminating against homosexuals, if, indeed, there is one.

Click to expand...

I'll answer that in the form of a question. When we consider the multitudes of relationships one can engage in (friendships, lovers, life partners, neighbors, work acquaintances, etc) what is the fundamental reason why the state (all over the world, throughout history, spanning dozens of cultures and governments from Monarchies to Empires) endorses the relationship of "man and wife", but not those others? What is it about "man and wife" that sets it apart from any other?

Let's discus that and you'll see the answer forming, again without religious connotation.


As to your notion about equal legal rights for homosexuals, let me drop homosexuals and just use the phrase "equal rights for all." Is that the world we want to live in? Let me explain, while I agree that everyone should have the basic rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, since we are different we there by necessity, have different, and unequal rights.

An example of a few:
Native Americans have a right to tribal sovereignty, meaning they can govern themselves.

There are no laws that allow men to take as much time off for Paternity leave as a woman has for maternity leave.

People who fall below a certain income level are eligible for benefits others don't.

People of certain faiths have tax exempt status.

I could go on and on, but the point is we do not, could not, or should not live in a world of total equality. God made us (oops, used God there didn't I? Let's say evolution) made us different for a reason. In so much as homosexuals are concerned, they have the rights in this country to love, form relationships, co-habitat, and display their relationships openly and freely. But to demand and shout unfair that an institution that has been "man and wife" be stripped of its identity to accommodate them is the very "imposing of beliefs" your fighting against, just going in the opposite direction. See, it's one thing to be free to live an "alternative lifestyle" without fear of ridicule, backlash, or violence. It's another to expect and demand the majority of a culture to acquiesce to the needs of a few. I quote Mr. Spock, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."

Take this recent nonsense with the bakery who refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding citing his personal religious beliefs. Wouldn't the high road of been for the gay couple to move on, find a different bakery, and complain on yelp? It's not as though the bakery doesn't serve gays, much like at one time shops didnt serve blacks, but to accept a contract to bake for a gay wedding is to endorse something he does not believe in. Does the baker not have rights in this manner? It doesn't stop the gay couple from having a cake, just not his cake. Yet a judge is threatening to fine and even imprison the baker if he doesn't perform this service for them. Now, who is imposing on whom?

That is not the case.
Sin hurts! Homosexuality hurts society. It is lax to argue we should tolerate sin because it doesn't hurt anyone. How ridiculous that is. And how cowardly to bow to Satan, arguing his spirit is tolerable because it doesn't harm anyone and it is perfectly OK as long as the sinful spirits are all consenting to be so.

Click to expand...

It's really just a case of it's easier to go with the flow than to stand up for what's right. It's called integrity. If it's wrong, it's wrong, no matter how many people approve.

sorednax said:

I'll answer that in the form of a question. When we consider the multitudes of relationships one can engage in (friendships, lovers, life partners, neighbors, work acquaintances, etc) what is the fundamental reason why the state (all over the world, throughout history, spanning dozens of cultures and governments from Monarchies to Empires) endorses the relationship of "man and wife", but not those others? What is it about "man and wife" that sets it apart from any other?

Click to expand...

So, is your position that because discrimination in this respect has always existed, it should always exist?

sorednax said:

As to your notion about equal legal rights for homosexuals, let me drop homosexuals and just use the phrase "equal rights for all." Is that the world we want to live in?

Click to expand...

Indeed it is. The UN Declaration of Human Rights spells out the position that we ought aspire to, I think.

sorednax said:

I could go on and on, but the point is we do not, could not, or should not live in a world of total equality.

Click to expand...

'do not, could not, or should not'? Which do you mean? They are separate positions requiring differing responses.

sorednax said:

I quote Mr. Spock, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."

Click to expand...

This is the precise logic Communist dicatators have used to oppress pretty much everyone, majorities as well as minorities. You need to be very careful how far you proceed with this line of thought.

sorednax said:

Take this recent nonsense with the bakery who refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding citing his personal religious beliefs...

Click to expand...

Ah. At last an ethical conundrum on the philosophy forum. Whose freedom should prevail - the baker's to supply who he wants, or the gay's to purchase where they want? Note that the legality of the situation is not relevant to the ethics. There is a difference between a question of law and a matter of morality.

So, whose freedom, when all is considered and balanced, tips the scale as the more weighty? Should the baker be allowed to refuse Jews, or blacks, or the disabled, or gypsies, or old age pensioners, or women? Should the gay couple simply accept that they are a more reprehensible minority than any of these?

Best wishes, 2RM

1Feather said:

...Sin hurts! Homosexuality hurts society. It is lax to argue we should tolerate sin because it doesn't hurt anyone...

Click to expand...

Well, 1Feather, I hope you feel better now, having got rid of all that bile.

But really, I want to ask you in what way homosexuality hurts society? You can assert all you like, but unless you can justify your assertions, there is no real reason why anyone should pay any attention to them.

And the other thing I want to ask you is what is it that makes homosexuality a sin, in your opinion? Why is homosexuality a sin? Don't quote the Bible at me - I want to know why Paul, and Leviticus, say what they do on the topic. (They don't give any reasons I can see).

Cheers, 2RM.

So, is your position that because discrimination in this respect has always existed, it should always exist?

Click to expand...

Not discrimination. A man/wife relationship that is legally endorsed ensures the stability and future of a community. Friendships, one-night stands, and neighbors don't do that. But you didn't answer the question did you? Just more empty rhetoric.

Explain how a same sex relationship endorsed by the state ensures the continued survival of a community?

So, whose freedom, when all is considered and balanced, tips the scale as the more weighty? Should the baker be allowed to refuse Jews, or blacks, or the disabled, or gypsies, or old age pensioners, or women? Should the gay couple simply accept that they are a more reprehensible minority than any of these?

Click to expand...

as is typical with discussions involving your ilk, you miss the point. Your comparison is erroneous.

If the baker said "I don't serve homosexuals", than I'd agree with you. That would be discriminating.

But his objection was being involved with a gay marriage, not gay customers.

let's put it this way, if I owned a bakery and three white guys wanted some cake, I wouldn't have a problem. Now, what if they said that they're throwing a party for a local chapter of the KKK. I wouldn't want to be involved in that, and thus refuse service for that event. By evidence of your own argument, you would say I was discriminating against white people. So your argument is unfounded and inconsistent.

So now, I want you to try and do something you've thus far been unable to do, answer questions. Not deflect, pick apart, or evade. Why does a state/government endorse a man/wife relationship, but not a friendship, one night stands, live-in lovers, etc? What fundamental gain does it get by doing this. Again, we're talking a myriad of cultures, faiths, practices and time periods. Yet the endorsement of man/wife in any civilization has been endorsed. why?

EDIT - additional:

And the other thing I want to ask you is what is it that makes homosexuality a sin, in your opinion? Why is homosexuality a sin? Don't quote the Bible at me - I want to know why Paul, and Leviticus, say what they do on the topic. (They don't give any reasons I can see).

Click to expand...

This is almost laughable. Why is it a sin and don't quote the bible? Can you tell me where babies come from and don't use biology?