OK, where is this goal in the gay agenda?

[MamaJunebug]

C'mon, out with it. You can tell me.

On the website of one of the more conservative Lutheran church bodies, there is the president's response to the SCOTUS marriage decision:

https://blogs.lcms.org/2015/synod-presi ... age-ruling

And it includes these paragraphs:

"....Like Roe v. Wade, this decision will be followed by a rash of lawsuits. Through coercive litigation, governments and popular culture continue to make the central post-modern value of sexual freedom override “the free exercise of religion†enshrined in the Bill of Rights.

"The ramifications of this decision are seismic. Proponents will seek to drive Christians and Christian institutions out of education at all levels; they will press laws to force faithful Christian institutions and individuals to violate consciences in work practices and myriad other ways. We will have much more to say about this."

Bolding mine, and that's what I need my brethren & sistren to clue me in on. Where in the agenda are teh gayz and their friends -- and I consider myself a friend -- bent on eliminating religious education?

You see, I've heard this claim from another über conservative Lutheran, radio host Rev. Wilkin, who said, as I recall, that the SCOTUS marriage decision will close Lutheran grade schools. That is "as I recall," he may have used other words, but the effect was the same on me: "Say what?!"

I was lucky to be educated part ways in a Lutheran school that used the classical method and stood me in fine stead, AFAIC, for the rest of my life.

I'd love to have an answer for this kind of fear-mongering because I'm sadly sure I will hear it when I'm around right wing friends.

And if it's actually in the agenda, why?

So anyone who can show me that part, or why it's nothing but fear mongering, has my gratitude forever.

You may say, "MJB, why don't you ask the cons to extrapolate for you?" Believe me, I will. And if at that time I have some info from our side to smack at them, all the better.

NB: I don't believe there is "a gay agenda" beyond securing rights for all. But Ive been wrong before. IIRC, that is. I'll need some time to search my memory. It's been a while...!

[PennySycamore]

You're correct, MJB, of there not being a "gay agenda" beyond securing equal rights for all.

I did see a memo pad a few years ago with The Gay Agenda on the top of the pad. It was just a memo pad like any other Honey Do list. For those FJites who may be unfamiliar with Honey Do lists, they just a list of tasks that you need to do. The name comes from "Honey, do this..."

[doggie]

of course the christian agenda is perfectly valid of course. no problem foreign faith on others.

[zebra #13]

Deal is--if a school provides housing for married couples, they will now need to do the same for (gasp) same-sex married couples (if they don't already provide for same sex couples). Or lose Federal Funding. Looks like HRC (Human Rights Campaign) *does* intend to watch this. . . .

Also, this was big in fundie circles last year:

http://www.onenewsnow.com/education/201 ... ian-values

[ADoyle90815]

You're correct, MJB, of there not being a "gay agenda" beyond securing equal rights for all.

I did see a memo pad a few years ago with The Gay Agenda on the top of the pad. It was just a memo pad like any other Honey Do list. For those FJites who may be unfamiliar with Honey Do lists, they just a list of tasks that you need to do. The name comes from "Honey, do this..."

The only "gay agenda" that exists is to get the same rights as everyone else when it comes to marriage, jobs, housing, and other things straight white men take for granted. They just want to be sure that if they do marry their partner, they'll be able to live where they want, and to be able to keep their jobs. They also want to be able to visit the person they love in the hospital.

[Jezebel]

I suspect they are afraid of what might happen were same-sex couples to try to enroll their children in religious schools.

That may sound far-fetched, but in some areas the local religiously-affiliated private school may be the best educational option. I've known plenty of non-Catholics, non-Lutherans, and non-Quakers who attended Catholic, Lutheran, or Quaker schools because they were academically superior to local public schools.

Most of those schools already accept students whose parents aren't members of that particular denomination, not to mention the children of divorced parents. And since the Bible has a lot more to say against divorce than it does homosexuality, to admit/retain the children od divorced parents as students--but not the children of legally married same-sex parents--could be seen as cherry-picking. It's a weak spot that could potentially be used in a same-sex couple's favor--and even if their children were never enrolled, the negative attention it would bring on the school, and the legal costs of defending themselves, would be immense.

Plus, hypocrites really, really don't like being exposed, and the possibility makes them squirm and get defensive.

That said, I doubt the fundie schools that teach creationism have much to fear--they don't offer a good enough education (at least in the sciences) to be attractive to any parents who aren't fundies. But the fundies are always looking for a threat and an enemy; they get off on the idea of being persecuted, so they'll run with it--as will other religious conservatives.

That's my best guess, anyway.

[Walking Cat Bed]

Oh, please. Everyone knows that the first rule of the Gay Agenda is that we don't discuss the Gay Agenda.

[zebra #13]

I suspect they are afraid of what might happen were same-sex couples to try to enroll their children in religious schools.

That may sound far-fetched, but in some areas the local religiously-affiliated private school may be the best educational option. I've known plenty of non-Catholics, non-Lutherans, and non-Quakers who attended Catholic, Lutheran, or Quaker schools because they were academically superior to local public schools.

Most of those schools already accept students whose parents aren't members of that particular denomination, not to mention the children of divorced parents. And since the Bible has a lot more to say against divorce than it does homosexuality, to admit/retain the children od divorced parents as students--but not the children of legally married same-sex parents--could be seen as cherry-picking. It's a weak spot that could potentially be used in a same-sex couple's favor--and even if their children were never enrolled, the negative attention it would bring on the school, and the legal costs of defending themselves, would be immense.

Plus, hypocrites really, really don't like being exposed, and the possibility makes them squirm and get defensive.

That said, I doubt the fundie schools that teach creationism have much to fear--they don't offer a good enough education (at least in the sciences) to be attractive to any parents who aren't fundies. But the fundies are always looking for a threat and an enemy; they get off on the idea of being persecuted, so they'll run with it--as will other religious conservatives.

That's my best guess, anyway.

Can't imagine it's being any kind of issue for a Friends' school. Every Quaker Meeting I've been a member of solved that issue decades ago: gays are married by and in all of them, and are full members.

ETA: take that back, there are some "Plain" Friends in Ohio that might could flinch. But I don't know that for sure.

[calimojo]

could someone help me understand how the SCOTUS ruling in any way impinges on religious freedom? As far as I know, you are free to worship how you please. But when you interact outside of your church, or outside of your home, you have to at least be as respectful to the rights of others as you want them to be of you. The SCOTUS Ruling doesn't insist that you must invite the newly married same sex couple to your backyard barbecue, it just means you can't deny them the right to lawfully own property in your neighborhood. Nor can you egg or TP their house just because you disagree with their lifestyle.

Am I missing something here?

[FundieliciousTaterTot]

could someone help me understand how the SCOTUS ruling in any way impinges on religious freedom? As far as I know, you are free to worship how you please. But when you interact outside of your church, or outside of your home, you have to at least be as respectful to the rights of others as you want them to be of you. The SCOTUS Ruling doesn't insist that you must invite the newly married same sex couple to your backyard barbecue, it just means you can't deny them the right to lawfully own property in your neighborhood. Nor can you egg or TP their house just because you disagree with their lifestyle.

Am I missing something here?

They've seen what has happened with desegregation and now they know inevitably same-sex couples will be "allowed" to integrate into mainstream society as anti-discrimination laws become more widespread at the state level.

Just like those creationists who cry that fossils are fraudulent they can't bear to admit they were wrong and that non-heteros are totally normal people.

Plus they think this country was founded under god (lol) so boohoo boohoo change it back.

I'm excited for the day when the LGBTQ community gets full civil rights...

[GiggleOfGirls]

Can't imagine it's being any kind of issue for a Friends' school. Every Quaker Meeting I've been a member of solved that issue decades ago: gays are married by and in all of them, and are full members.

ETA: take that back, there are some "Plain" Friends in Ohio that might could flinch. But I don't know that for sure.

Ditto about the experiences in Friends Meetings - no anti-gay sentiment that I've ever seen.

Regarding the religious schools that do oppose same sex marriage, what possible reason could a religious school give to refuse entry to a child who just happens to have two mothers or two fathers? Kids whose parents are divorced also often have two mothers and/or two fathers if one or both parents get remarried.

Not that I wouldn't put it past some schools to deny entrance because of that, but it defies all reason. I'd also think that most of the very fundy ones that would actually do that would also be the ones teaching creationism and likely wouldn't be the first choice for folks who aren't like-minded or hetero.

[Black Aliss]

could someone help me understand how the SCOTUS ruling in any way impinges on religious freedom?

It doesn't. No religious organization can be forced to perform a same sex marriage ceremony (or an interracial one for that matter). Religious institutions can discriminate to their little hearts' content when it comes to hiring, firing, and blah blah blah.

Am I missing something here?

Nope.

[RosyDaisy]

could someone help me understand how the SCOTUS ruling in any way impinges on religious freedom? As far as I know, you are free to worship how you please. But when you interact outside of your church, or outside of your home, you have to at least be as respectful to the rights of others as you want them to be of you. The SCOTUS Ruling doesn't insist that you must invite the newly married same sex couple to your backyard barbecue, it just means you can't deny them the right to lawfully own property in your neighborhood. Nor can you egg or TP their house just because you disagree with their lifestyle.

Am I missing something here?

The clergy don't have to marry anyone, but judges do if the couple meets the legal requirements. Here in Alabama, a majority of judges are disgusted by the fact that they are now forced to do something against their beliefs. They forget about separation of church and state. Hell, many of them would like to see America become a Christian nation.

To that, I say fuck you resign your position. If you don't agree with the law, then get your homophobic ass out of the courthouse. You were elected/appointed to see that the letter followed. Your religious beliefs don't mean a damn thing and have no place in the judicial system.

[VelociRapture]

Oh, please. Everyone knows that the first rule of the Gay Agenda is that we don't discuss the Gay Agenda.

I thought the agenda was about glitter, better fashion choices, and just being awesome. Apparently, I was wrong - and I learned something today. :lol:

[IronicallyMaeve]

I thought the agenda was about glitter, better fashion choices, and just being awesome. Apparently, I was wrong - and I learned something today. :lol:

No, it's about cats. Everyone should adopt a cat (or five) today!

[smittykins]

No, it's about cats. Everyone should adopt a cat (or five) today!

Ok I'm in.(I'd totally adopt five if I could, but unfortunately, my lease restricts me to one kitteh. :wink-kitty: )

[RosyDaisy]

Of course it's about cats. My SIL and her fiancée are adopting one.

[lawlifelgbt]

So, I can say what the gay agenda is! I wrote an actual agenda of things to do before/for my first same-sex date:

1. Buy vodka

2. Buy OJ

3. Launder nice outfit

4. Pack books for trip (it was an LDR at the time)

5. Get new card from credit union

[Black Aliss]

As revealed by Betty Bowers: http://www.bettybowers.com/homoagenda.html

3:33-4:30 pm is the busy time.

[Walking Cat Bed]

As revealed by Betty Bowers: http://www.bettybowers.com/homoagenda.html

3:33-4:30 pm is the busy time.

What, naptime?

[LongDogMom]

could someone help me understand how the SCOTUS ruling in any way impinges on religious freedom? As far as I know, you are free to worship how you please. But when you interact outside of your church, or outside of your home, you have to at least be as respectful to the rights of others as you want them to be of you. The SCOTUS Ruling doesn't insist that you must invite the newly married same sex couple to your backyard barbecue, it just means you can't deny them the right to lawfully own property in your neighborhood. Nor can you egg or TP their house just because you disagree with their lifestyle.

Am I missing something here?

Nope, I totally agree with you. These cries by Christians that this ruling somehow denies them religious freedom are ridiculous! They're like children throwing tantrums because they didn't get their way. I'm shocked by how many high-level politicians seem to think Christians are above the law, and have been encouraging people to find ways around the ruling, or to simply break the law if they feel it's against their religion, aka....they don't like gay people (because they have no problem with issuing marriage licenses for divorced people or people wearing mixed fabrics, and other Biblical sins *cough*hypocrites*cough*). It's like Rick Santorum going on about how gay marriage is going to destroy the world. Really? The papers of full of parents killing or abusing their children, people shooting each other, wars, global pollution and things like oil spills and fracking, unemployment and lack of education and opportunities...and it's gay marriage, a union between two committed people who love each other, that's going to destroy the world? Seems to me that the religious extremists of most religions are doing a lot more harm than gay couples who want to marry! Sheesh! It always reminds me of that old Lewis Black sketch about Gay Bandidos who creep out to ruin the "American Family"...because when that sketch came out, THAT was the line being used: that gays were going to destroy the American family. Now it's the world! :wink-kitty:

For anyone who hasn't seem the sketch, you should watch it, it's hilarious!

[Emkay]

The only issue I can see is for any religious institution that receives federal funding. There may be questions as to where the lines are drawn as to where free exercise ends and the government's say begins- for ex- churches who run schools, food banks, soup kitchens, shelters, etc.

[Trynn]

No, it's about cats. Everyone should adopt a cat (or five) today!

My friend is buying me a cat soon, but she says I have to unpack and organize my apartment first.,

She's not gay though, she's asexual. Can that still count as furthering the gay agenda?

[syntex72]

The real answer question is why dont people think Obama is really out to force all Christians in to FEMA death camps so they can make their Guns get Gay married?

[Black Aliss]

I found a copy of the gay agenda. No mention of FEMA camps.