The Gay Agenda Isn't About Gays

Discussion in 'Religion and Ethics' started by ScreamingEagle, Mar 17, 2005.

  1. ScreamingEagle
    Offline

    ScreamingEagle Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2004
    Messages:
    12,887
    Thanks Received:
    1,610
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,159
    Is it really "gay rights" that they're after, or is it something else?

    The San Francisco judge who stands the Constitution on its head so that persons of the same sex can be "married"; the gay militants who plan a mass rally this summer in the Holy City of Jerusalem; the liberal church leaders who boldly contradict the Bible--are they making all this fuss only because their hearts bleed for the gays?

    What kind of world do they offer us--these self-anointed judges, militants, renegade clergy, Planned Parenthood, GLSEN? These academics, pundits, and movie stars? Ignoring the obvious folly of promoting high-risk behavior in an age of AIDS, where are they going with this business?

    Quite simply, to a world in open rebellion against God.

    And why?

    Because they wish to be as gods themselves.

    Why else overturn timeless, universal taboos? Why else redefine and reconfigure institutions as basic as marriage and the family?

    What these people seek is the authority to define how we shall live. They reject the Biblical view that "it is He that hath made us, and not we ourselves; we are His people, and the sheep of His pasture" (Ps. 100:3).

    God has not made us, they say. We are the product of random natural processes by which inanimate matter became life and evolved into human beings. The Earth is not the Lord's. It belongs to those who are powerful enough to rule the others.

    Secret societies have always bound their initiates by getting them to violate the most profound taboos. It's a way of radically cutting them off from the rest of society. The Bacchic Conspiracy, aimed at subverting Rome in the 2nd century B.C., used homosexual orgies as its initiation ritual. It was intended to alienate young men and women from their families.

    Today we see this being done openly instead of in secrecy, and on a global scale. To take God's place as the shepherd, the self-anointed of this world first need to rustle His sheep.

    As G.K. Chesterton observed, when a man ceases to believe in God, he doesn't believe in nothing; he believes in anything.

    The plan here is to lead God's people into rebellion, encourage them to violate God's laws governing marriage and the family, and leave them with nowhere to turn, in the end, but to the wise, worldly powers who brought them to this pass.

    It's not about "helping" gays. It's about grabbing for the power to define good and evil.

    It won't work, of course. Nothing "shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Rom.8:39). God won the battle for men's souls when Christ died on the cross. It is not possible that He will abandon his sheep to the care of other sheep disguised as shepherds.

    The self-anointed offer us slavery disguised as freedom, nothing more. They have deceived many; they have especially deceived themselves. Someday their whole enterprise will be brought crashing into ruin.

    We who have not followed them into moral chaos have one duty: to stand firm, and bear witness that God's word is truth.

    http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/c-e/duigon/2005/duigon031605.htm
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. dmp
    Offline

    dmp Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    13,088
    Thanks Received:
    741
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Enterprise, Alabama
    Ratings:
    +741
    Excellent...you're a local...we should drink a beer together.
     
  3. Yurt
    Offline

    Yurt Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2004
    Messages:
    25,583
    Thanks Received:
    3,554
    Trophy Points:
    270
    Location:
    Hot air ballon
    Ratings:
    +5,038
    I agree, the left's attack on the people who want to defend traditional notions of marriage, defend biblical notions of marriage, is a true grab of power.

    I have a gay aunt. We are very close. We were having this discussion about a year ago concerning whether or not the libs actually care about gay rights, namely, Wedont Kerry. She and her partner, who have no interest in marriage in terms of biblical understanding, because they respect that as an institution (they only want rights such as visitation in hospital, probate..) agree that JK does not care about the gay agenda, in fact he is against it, though maybe he changed his mind. They also feel that the demo party as a whole is only using them to grab power, ie, more votes. When pressed on a personal level, they feel that most senators, congressman (people, whatever) would truly not support gay marriage.


    Spot on with this article.
     
  4. HorhayAtAMD
    Offline

    HorhayAtAMD Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2004
    Messages:
    309
    Thanks Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Canada, eh!
    Ratings:
    +31
    How does letting 2 gays marry each other have any effect on defining how you live? From what I've seen, they aren't even asking the church's recognition of their marriage, only the government's. I would be 100% opposed to forcing churches to conduct gay marriage ceremonies if it ever came to that but that doesn't seem to be the request. So how exactly does a gay couple getting a piece of paper from some government official that you've never met "define how you shall live"?

    So what if they reject Biblical views? So what if they believe in 8 armed gods with elephant trunks (don't shoot me, I'm no expert on Hindus)? So what if they believe in nothing... or anything? I don't think you should use someone else's religion (or lack thereof) to attack their viewpoints any more than they should dismiss you and your ideas simply because you are Christian. As far as I'm aware, the US Constitution protects their right to reject Biblical views.

    I know many here will disagree but you don't do your cause any good by bringing religion into the gay marriage debate. It makes it too easy for them to write you off as "just another wacko fundamentalist Christian" and then convince other more moderate Christians of their viewpoint. You will also have to be very careful about making this debate about religion because legally, it may pit your religious problems with gay marriage against freedom of religion, something that really shouldn't have any part of this debate.

    In the end, I hope the US does have a referendum on the matter and then the majority can truly decide.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  5. dilloduck
    Offline

    dilloduck Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    53,240
    Thanks Received:
    5,552
    Trophy Points:
    1,850
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +6,403
    Humans are social animals and what we do somehow affects the rest of us. Don't try to tell me that gays don't want to mark their mark. No one can criticize a gay person for the same reason you can't criticize any minority---you get called a bigot. I agree with the article--the gay agenda is just another front on the war against religious value systems.
     
  6. Nienna
    Offline

    Nienna Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Messages:
    4,515
    Thanks Received:
    333
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +333
    In every state where marriage protection initiatives were on the ballot last year, every one passed, most of them by overwhelming majorities. The majority of the American people do not want gay "marriage" legalized.

    How does gay marriage affect Christians/ other straights? Ask the clergy in Canada and the Netherlands who were arrested for "hate speech" after gay marriage was legalized. This country was "founded on the Gospel of Jesus Christ and none other." "All men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights." The reason we have freedom of religion in this country is because this country was founded upon Christian principles. Religion is an intrinsic part of this debate, as it is of this country.

    Wherever gay marriage is legalized, the free speech of Christians is curtailed shortly thereafter.

    Now, look at the declining marriage rate in the Netherlands; where more people are allowed to marry, you would expect more marriages, but the marriage rate is dropping. Gay marriage and no-fault divorce have made a mockery of the institution.

    Children who grow up with both biological parents who are married to each other do better in every measure of well-being, from physical to academic to staying away from crime, etc. Men and women each have something unique to give to their children. Gay couples deprive children of either a father or a mother.

    These are all reasons the government has a vested interest in preserving traditional marriage. It is disingenuous to claim that what a gay couple does has no effecet on the rest of us. Gays can already do what they want in the privacy of their homes. They are seeking to change the law, and that is by nature a public thing.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 4
  7. Bonnie
    Offline

    Bonnie Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2004
    Messages:
    9,476
    Thanks Received:
    668
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Wherever
    Ratings:
    +669
    Absolutely Dillo!!

    Great article Eagle!!
     
  8. Bonnie
    Offline

    Bonnie Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2004
    Messages:
    9,476
    Thanks Received:
    668
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Wherever
    Ratings:
    +669
    Great point!
     
  9. HorhayAtAMD
    Offline

    HorhayAtAMD Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2004
    Messages:
    309
    Thanks Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Canada, eh!
    Ratings:
    +31
    I agree. I think if it ever did go to a referendum, it would pass and that would hopefully be the end of that. I'm not naive enough to think that it will be the end but that is life in a democratic, open society. :)

    I'm not familiar enough with the cases you are talking about but let's, for the sake of argument, assume that the clergy were not saying anything hateful against gays and that they should never have been arrested. The fact that they got arrested says nothing about whether gays should be allowed to marry or not. It would be like saying blacks shouldn't be allowed to go to white schools because it might cause people who want segragated schools to protest and be arrested. The hate law issue is separate from the gay marriage issue.

    I must admit that the religious situation in the US confuses me. On the one hand, there is no denying that the US is a very Christian country. On the other hand, US laws have purposely been written to protect people from oppression based on religion. It is difficult to balance the majority's desire that everyone live by the Christian code of ethics, one of which is that heterosexuality is the only accepted sexual orientation, while not oppressing people with those Christian code of ethics. If religion becomes an intrinsic part of this debate, it isn't too far of a stretch to say that people who don't believe in Jesus Christ are an abomination in the eyes of the Lord and maybe athiests shouldn't be allowed to marry. After all, those who don't believe in God are just as wicked as homosexuals according to the bible. In fact, athiests are probably more wicked since they are breaking one of the 10 commandments. Of course I don't think that would ever happen but when you bring up religion as a basis for banning gay marriage, it is difficult to turn around and say that athiest marriages are okay.

    I refuse to believe that marriage, as an institution, is so weak that allowing a tiny fraction of the population to marry will destroy marriage for the other 95%. There are many reasons why marriage rates could be declining in the Netherlands. Marriage rates have been declining in Quebec for many, many years, long before the gay marriage issue came up. Maybe the rates in Netherlands are falling for the same reason as they are falling in Quebec, who knows? I have faith in the desire of man and woman to marry each other and I refuse to believe that allowing gays to marry will somehow wipe out that desire in heterosexuals. If our desire to marry is that weak, we have far bigger problems.

    Here is probably the best argument against gay marriage. Unfortunately, I suspect that most of the research has compared single parent families to dual parent families and found that dual parent families are far better for the children. It says nothing about whether the 2 parents have to be man and woman. It would be very interesting to see how well adjusted kids in happy gay homes are compared to kids in happy heterosexual homes.

    And I think it is good that there is debate, and that people think about it, and eventually vote one way or another so the issue can be laid to rest. However, just because they are seeking to change the law doesn't automatically mean that you will be affected. There are hundreds of laws that don't affect me at all and it doesn't matter one bit to me if those laws are struck down or if new laws are created until there are thousands of laws that don't affect me.

    In the end, I can only speak for myself, living in a country where some provinces do allow gay marriage, and knowing that I am as happy with my wife today as I was when we first got married. I don't feel that our marriage is now dirty because somewhere, there are two men who are recognized as husband and husband. If the existence of those 2 men makes someone never want to marry, it is my belief that that someone would have found another reason not to marry even if gay marriage was outlawed.
     
  10. dilloduck
    Offline

    dilloduck Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    53,240
    Thanks Received:
    5,552
    Trophy Points:
    1,850
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +6,403
    I'll say it again---WHY DO THEY INSIST ON CALLING THEIR UNION "MARRIAGE?" Civil union not good enough for em or are they pretending to be a hetero couple when they are not. Let em come up for their OWN term for whatever it is they want but sorry, "marriage" is already taken by heteros.
     

Share This Page