I would highly recommend that you watch the video clips at http://www.massresistance.org/media/video/brainwashing.html. They are from a documentary showing how elementary and junior high kids can be indoctrinated to believe homosexuality and same-sex marriage are morally acceptable (something the film extols as a virtue). If you think homosexuality is wrong, but that the issue of homosexuality is a private matter that isn’t going to hurt anybody so we should just sit back and do nothing, you need to watch this video. The gay rights movement has gone beyond the “just leave us alone to do what we want to do in the privacy of our own homes” days and into the day of approval advocacy. They are not content to be allowed to live how they want to live–now they want to make sure that you approve of their lifestyle as well. It’s too difficult to change adults’ minds, so they are targeting the young.
And this is coming to a California school near you this year. California just enacted a law that requires teachers to teach children about gays in history class.
And for the record, I think we should treat homosexuals with respect. I am opposed to verbally abusing and ridiculing gay people (Christians in particular should not be guilty of this). But that does not mean we have to pretend as if their sexual attractions are natural or that their sexual behavior is no different than heterosexuals’. We can love people without having to call their immorality moral or pretending that what is not normal is normal. While schools should do what is necessary to make sure that gay kids or kids with gay “parents” are not subjected to ill-treatment by their peers, that does not require teaching them that homosexuality is perfectly acceptable. Tolerance and respect does not require agreement. And if we think it does, we have lost the essence of what it means to be tolerant.
Thinking to Believe 
January 12, 2012 at 5:54 am
Christianity is not the only “player” in this debate. You do not run our country, you do not speak for 100% of the people.
I am not gay, but I feel that this view that it is immoral is pathetic.
Grow up and stop asserting your insecurities on the rest of us, and don’t pass it off as informed debate.
The very fact that you harbour these bigoted views is exactly why scores and scores of us adults are leaving faith behind as something of the past.
Grow up.
LikeLike
January 12, 2012 at 7:51 am
Michael that is an interesting sideways confession that you really don’t care about the facts, you just want to have your own positive convictions about the issue and you don’t want anyone commenting on it or examining it.
Illogic, double standards, reverses intolerance, unhealthy and dangerous, psychologically harmful, dishonesty, perversion, abomination, deception, unnatural; none of these are of any importance since they have nothing to do with the issue in your view, right?
You are obviously not thinking clearly on the matter and you would prefer that no one else bothered to think clearly about it too. Well I think you need to remember that thinking clearly has not yet become a crime in our country. Neither has discussing views and informing others about the wrong actions of some a crime.
You do understand that we are talking about little children here don’t you?
LikeLike
January 12, 2012 at 8:09 am
Thanks for the information Jason. I agree with your comments and I also think that we need to be well informed enough to respond intelligently to their arguments and tactics. Here are a few great sites with infomation that can help.
http://missionamerica.com/
http://www.robgagnon.net/
there are also a few more links on this web page.
http://afjm.net/page3.html
LikeLike
January 12, 2012 at 9:48 am
Michael,
You are right, we don’t run the country. We don’t suppose otherwise. We are just one of the players. What we are doing is working to persuade people to our point of view, and then those beliefs translate into the voting booth, and the majority wins. It’s called democracy. You seem to act as if you want everyone who disagrees with you to just stay home. It doesn’t work that way. And if you think it is mature to tell everyone who disagrees with you to shut up, that is immature. There is a debate to be debated here.
You also seem to think that it’s just Christians who oppose homosexuality. The fact of the matter is that a very large minority of Christians support homosexuality (https://theosophical.wordpress.com/2011/03/23/american-catholics-are-the-biggest-supporters-of-same-sex-marriage/), and a very large minority of the non-religious are opposed to it (https://theosophical.wordpress.com/2010/10/27/more-than-religion-is-responsible-for-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage). Furthermore, there are many other religions that oppose it as well. Opposition to homosexuality comes from people, regardless of their creed or absence thereof.
Jason
LikeLike
January 20, 2012 at 10:07 am
Michael, it sounds like this issue has made you really hostile towards Christians. I know that this is a difficult issue to discuss with someone like yourself without offending them or sounding like a bigot. I also know that some Christians have poor tact in how they talk to people about this issue and they can come across as ignorant and even immature in some cases. I don’t think Jason’s comments in this post fall into this category, in fact he did say we should have tolerance and respect to those that hold these views.
Contrary to what others say, as believers and followers of Christ, our goal is not to run this country or even change public policy for that matter. If Christians think that is what we are to spend our energies on, they are greatly misled and are working contrary to the One they profess to follow (Jesus). Our goal is just to be a voice for what God stands for and for what He is all about. You do not have to agree with our voice but we are obligated to speak nonetheless.
So you may see Christians speak out against homosexuality, abortion etc… but what we really want is for people to come to know Jesus Christ. The issues are secondary and those that expend their energies demonizing people for their actions are the self-righteous and are not acting as they should. We all have done things that are wrong and we all need the forgiveness and the mercy that can only come through Jesus. Once a person realizes this, the issues will work themselves out. Society as a whole will still have their policies and agendas, but individuals can change one at a time.
I am sorry you think “faith” is just a thing of the past. What we’re really talking about here is God – He is flawless, humanity is filled with flaws, don’t forget that.
Take care my friend……….
Naz
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 4:02 pm
Tyranny of the majority Jason? (Shaking my head)
LikeLike
January 29, 2012 at 11:03 pm
If the pro-homosex crowd was in the majority, and could pass laws requiring this kind of indoctrination in all 50 states, and could silence anyone who disagrees with homosex, would you still be saying “tyranny of the majority?” I doubt it.
Do you have a problem with majority rule? Perhaps a democratic society is not the place for you. Perhaps you would prefer a country where there is genuine tyranny.
Please explain the tyranny involved here.
Jason
LikeLike
January 31, 2012 at 4:35 pm
The fact of the matter is that our country was founded on the basis of religious tolerance and general tolerance as well. To say that homosexuality is wrong based on religious standards does not hold up in a state. We cannot deny someone their rights simply based on their sexuality. Our constitution promises “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” If that pursuit involves same sex marriage, how are we to deny that when it isn’t harming anyone else. Morally, we have to condone it. The US has promised equal rights to all its citizens and has to uphold that promise, even if a few people murmur their dissent. Within an educational system, religion cannot come in to play (seperation of church and state), which is where most of the arguements against same sex marriage come from. Hence, teaching tolerance towards homosexuals is perfectly acceptable. If you would like to teach your children to hate them, go ahead but do it on your own time.
Furthermore, the “majority” that you speak of is little more than a statistical fallacy. That majority can be obtained by pre-screening participants and/or posting it some place where one knows the “right” people will see it. As Winston Churchill once said, “There is no public opinion, only published opinion.” One can’t rely on studies unless the exact perimeters of the study are examined to check for accuracy. Otherwise, we may end up believing information that has been manipulated.
People once thought it was okay to deny rights based on the color of one’s skin. That idea seems ridiculous today. Now we’re trying to deny rights based on sexuality, an idea that is even more ridiculous. Why must we try to exclude people from our society? Does that make us feel more powerful because they want what they can’t have?
Essentially, what I’m trying to say is that according to the state, homosexuality is morally acceptable because the state has to be free from religion. Therefore, it is allowed to teach it in schools especially when teaching tolerance protects its students and reduces problems later on down the road. If you don’t agree with this view, teach your child differently. They’re more likely to listen to a parental figure or a religious leader anyway.
LikeLike
February 1, 2012 at 3:04 pm
B,
Yes, I believe in tolerance too. But that doesn’t mean you let people do whatever they want to do.
One does not need religious arguments to conclude that there is something wrong or undesirable about homosex. But the social propriety or morality of homosex is irrelevant anyway in the context of the same-sex marriage debate. One could think that homosex is morally benign and yet still be opposed to same-sex marriage because the best arguments against same-sex marriage are civil rather than religious in nature. See my argument here as an example: http://www.onenesspentecostal.com/samesexmarriage.htm.
Who says it is a right to have one’s relationship recognized, privileged, and regulated by the government? While I think marriage is a natural institution, and while I think the government should not prohibit anyone from entering into a marriage, that does not require government to sanction, regulate, and privilege anyone’s relationship, including heterosexuals. Indeed, in this country same-sex couples are free to have sex together, live together, and commit themselves to one another for life. The government is not preventing them from doing anything. All the government is doing is refusing to regulate, privilege, and give social approval to same-sex relationships. And there is no compelling reason that they should start doing so.
As for equality, everyone in this country does have equal rights when it comes to marriage. Marriage between a male and a female is available to anyone who desires it. The fact that people with a homosexual orientation do not want to partake of the institution made available to them as citizens is not our fault. What they want is not equal rights, but additional rights. They want the institution of marriage to be redefined and expanded to include the kind of relationship they wish to be part of. But the government is not required to change the definition of marriage to suit every kind of relationship that someone can come up with and want sanctioned by the government. Bisexuals would like to have polygamous relationships recognized by the government. Must the government do so in order to preserve equality? Equality is about opportunity, and everyone is equal in this country when it comes to the option to marry. To change what marriage is in order to accommodate the desires of same-sex couples would not bring equality where there was none before.
I know polling and statistics are not perfect, but your conspiracy theory about them is a bit over the top. Besides, the polls reveal who the majority is, and whenever the issue of same-sex marriage has been presented to voters, voters have overwhelmingly disapproved it.
Your comparison of sexuality to race is unfounded. As Greg Koukl noted, “The debate about same-sex marriage is not about whether homosexuals, as human beings, are equal with other human beings, as was the case with the civil rights movement. It’s about whether homosexuality is equal to heterosexuality, and deserving of the same legal status and social respect.” Same-sex marriage is no more an issue of civil rights than it is an issue of civil rights to deny a man the right to a hysterectomy. By nature men do not qualify for hysterectomies, and homosexuals do not qualify for marriage.
And no one is excluding anyone from society. You act as if we are rounding up homosexuals and throwing them in jail. Moral disapproval or a principled rejection of same-sex marriage does not equate into excluding people from society. Should I say to you, “Your condemnation of those who believe homosexuality is immoral and that same-sex marriage should not be legal excludes them from society. You make them 2nd class citizens”? That would be absurd. You criticize those of my persuasion for excluding people, and yet you want to exclude us because you say we exclude people. That’s self-refuting and hypocritical. The fact of the matter is that both sides have different moral and civil convictions. The issues should be discussed. All of the demonizing is unnecessary and unhelpful.
And you are wrong to think the state has to be free from religion. The first amendment was to guarantee that religion would be free from the state’s influence. People vote according to their worldview, and it is nothing short of bigoted and intolerant to say that those whose worldview is informed by religious convictions should have no say in the direction of this country. You also fail to realize that law is a moral enterprise on its face. Every law that gets passed is informed by a moral concern, and our morals are usually informed from a variety of sources, including religion. It’s not a matter of whether or not morality will or should be legislated, but a matter of whose morality will be legislated.
Jason
LikeLike
February 7, 2012 at 5:57 pm
You conclude in your argument against the practicality of same-sex marriages that marriages are for those who intend to procreate. Should we, therefore, not allow couples that are sterile not to marry? They cannot produce children, which is, as you’ve stated, the primary function of marriage. What about the couples that never intend to have children? Are they denied the benefits that come along with being married? of course not. We cannot deny those same rights to homosexuals.
Yes, heterosexual couples are not denied the right to marry. However that is only one faction of our nation. In order to be equitable, we must provide this privledge to all. We have guaranteed “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” to all and we need to uphold it. But to say that allowing this equality would automatically lead to polygamous relationships is absurd. One does not automatically yield another. There is no proof to back that up. Also, there is nothing saying polygamous relationships are wrong morally. If 4 people choose to enter into such a relationship, that is their choice.
You say that I have a conspiracy theory against facts and statistics, but you have to admit that the exact perimeters of a study need to be looked at in order to determine whether it is legitimate. Also, voters represent only a portion of our citizens. You underestimate the power of those unable to vote. Recent studies sanctioned by my state have found a growing sympathy towards homosexuals in high school students. But this group of people is ignored simply because of their age.
You also said that I cannot compare homosexuality to race, but then went on to say that homosexuals aren’t equal to heterosexuals. Can you prove that? Are not all people equal?
My condemnation of you is not the same as your condemnation of homosexuals. I, for one, am not denying people rights or starting a smear campaign against teaching children to accept homosexuals in order to stop violence and discrimination in school. I am not excluding you from any priviledge or right offered in this country, merely debating your ideas, which is exactly what you proposed we do.
I agree. Religion does influence how individuals vote. But a state has no right to force the constraints of one religion on its people. I’m not excluding those with religious viewpoints from taking part in society. I would be excluding myself in the process. However, I am excluding a single church entity from imposing its morals across all the nation. Again, the only arguments against homosexual marriages are religious ones and we can not use those as a sole contention against marriage.
LikeLike
February 9, 2012 at 12:01 pm
I’ve address the childless couples objection here: https://theosophical.wordpress.com/2010/09/17/same-sex-marriage-dealing-with-the-%e2%80%9cchildless-couples%e2%80%9d-objection/.
You say there is no need to extend marriage to polygamous relationships, but your own logic demands it. Was it not you who said, “In order to be equitable, we must provide this privledge to all.” Does not “all” include polygamous relationships? Why are you so bigoted as to say only heterosexuals and homosexuals can marry the people they want? How fair is that? You can’t have your cake and eat it to. The logic of your position leads to extending marriage to anyone who wants it, regardless of whether or not society thinks it is deserving, or whether or not society morally approves of the relationship.
I did not say heterosexual persons are not equal to homosexual persons. Heterosexual relationships are not equal to heterosexual relationships in society because they function differently. This has nothing to do with the worth of individual human beings.
I am not denying people rights either. To make that charge you first have to prove they have a right to something. I am arguing that they already have the same rights you and I do to marry someone of the opposite sex, and that the additional right they want to marry someone of the same-sex is not a right, and should not be considered a right. Just declaring something a right does not make it so.
So does a state have a right to exclude certain voters from voting their conscience because their conscience is informed by a particular religious persuasion? After all, it’s not church entities that vote; it’s individuals. Everyone has a say-so, and everyone has a moral point of view. Someone’s moral point of view will win out. Indeed, there are Christians who are pro-homosexual and they think their religion justifies that position. Since theirs is a religious position, should their views not be allowed to become law? Clearly not. The issue is not whether or not one’s moral point of view is informed by religion. The issue is what their point of view is. If religion informs their morals, so be it. They are still allowed to participate in democracy.
Jason
LikeLike
February 28, 2012 at 9:15 am
I think the problem of these politics is their huge appeal to emotion, claiming victimization, and demonizing everyone who disagrees in principle without looking at the aftermath that follows. Pedofilia is a sexual struggle, yet not an acceptable identity, although Nambla is an organization pushing for more acceptability of man-boy love. Sex is an issue because it’s always been an issue. Does anyone feel we’ll have world-wide approval of every sexual impulse people have? I feel FocusOnTheFamily.com and Truetolerence.org puts the debate into perspective fairly well. The state is interested in marriage because of the children they produce, so outside of a procreative context, you could be married to your brother or sister, or your fishing buddies. Extending marriage in practice goes well beyond the debate of equality and the fears for what follows is real. Norway’s had it for over a decade and most children there are born out of wedlock. It won’t be long until gay couples will demand special treatment to adopt over heterosexual couples instead of looking at the child’s best interest in having both healthy male and female role models which massive amount of studies say is best for child development. I read an article about a guy in Canada that was fined $5000 for buying a newspaper that quoted the Bible on homosexuality because it was considered “hate-literature”. Shows like focus on the family are censored there, and freedom of speech and religion could be affected here as well under “hate laws”, which by nature are “thought police” and unconstutional without acts of violence. Indoctrination is one-sided, and sure to follow gay marriage or there will be a mine-field of litigation for schools and small employers. Kids deserve a fair shake, and the statistics that gay political parties provide aren’t complete or even correct according to TrueTolerence.org. There’s a reason why the FDA doesn’t allow gay men to give blood to the red cross–risk of disease is astronomical. (http://www.ncfamily.org/FNC/0707S3.html)
As far as Christianity goes, homosexuality is in the same-boat as pre-marital sex. Neither are wise and likely to have a more complicated life. Everyone deals with temptation, and we’re not born perfect, but the bottom line is there’s always hope in Christ. We can’t have personal growth without trial and imperfection.
LikeLike
March 12, 2012 at 2:30 pm
asfsfaw, very well said. Thanks for your well thoughtout input. It is not likely that pro homosexuality defenders really want to dialogue about it, they just want to make people accept it and feel embarrassed if they reject it. Usually whenever they come accross someone who is a thinker and can intelligently rebut their illogic, they go awayto find someone less informed to argue with.
It would be nice if all Christians were well informed and knew how to defend their point of view. Thanks
LikeLike