Obama on same sex marriage

[bojack34 2]

Obama: Sermon on Mount Justifies Same-Sex Unions

Terence P. Jeffrey

(CNSNews.com) - Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) told a crowd at Hocking College in Nelsonville, Ohio, Sunday that he believes the Sermon on the Mount justifies his support for legal recognition of same-sex unions. He also told the crowd that his position in favor of legalized abortion does not make him "less Christian."

"I don't think it [a same-sex union] should be called marriage, but I think that it is a legal right that they should have that is recognized by the state," said Obama. "If people find that controversial then I would just refer them to the Sermon on the Mount, which I think is, in my mind, for my faith, more central than an obscure passage in Romans." ((Hear audio from WTAP-TV)) St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans condemns homosexual acts as unnatural and sinful.

Obama's mention of the Sermon on the Mount in justifying legal recognition of same-sex unions may have been a reference to the Golden Rule: "Do to others what you would have them do to you." Or it may have been a reference to another famous line: "Do not judge, or you too will be judged."

The Sermon, recorded in the Gospel of Matthew, includes the Lord's Prayer, the Beatitudes, an endorsement of scriptural moral commandments ("anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven"), and condemnations of murder, divorce and adultery. It also includes a warning: "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves."

The passage from St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans, which Obama dismissed as "obscure," discusses people who knew God but turned against him.

"They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised," wrote St. Paul. "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."

On the topic of abortion, Obama said his support for keeping it legal does not trespass on his Christian faith.

"I think that the bottom line is that in the end, I think women, in consultation with their pastors, and their doctors, and their family, are in a better position to make these decisions than some bureaucrat in Washington. That's my view," Obama said about abortion. "Again, I respect people who may disagree, but I certainly don't think it makes me less Christian. Okay." (Hear audio from WTAP-TV)

Obama opened his town-hall-type meeting at the college with a short speech and then provided lengthy answers to a handful of questions. One questioner, Leon Forte, a Protestant clergyman, asked Obama about evangelical Christians who were concerned about his position on issues that conservatives consider "litmus tests."

"Your campaign sets a quandary for most evangelical Christians because I believe that they believe in the social agenda that you have, but they have a problem in what the conservatives have laid out as the moral litmus tests as to who is worthy and who is not," said Forte. "So, I will ask you to speak to those two questions."(See transcript)

Obama volunteered that he believed Forte was talking about abortion and homosexual marriage, and then he gave answers on both issues that were not as explicit as positions he has staked out on these issues in other venues. Last Thursday, for example, as reported by Cybercast News Service, Obama published on his Web site an "open letter concerning LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender) equality in America."

In that letter, Obama said he favored same-sex unions that were equal to marriage--including adoption rights--and that he was open to states codifying same-sex marriages.

"As your President, I will use the bully pulpit to urge states to treat same-sex couples with full equality in their family and adoption laws," Obama said in the letter. "I personally believe that civil unions represent the best way to secure that equal treatment. But I also believe that the federal government should not stand in the way of states that want to decide on their own how best to pursue equality for gay and lesbian couples--whether that means a domestic partnership, a civil union, or a civil marriage."

In Ohio on Sunday, before mentioning the Sermon on the Mount, Obama insisted he was against "gay marriage" and did not mention his support for allowing same-sex couples to adopt children and have the same "family" status as heterosexual couples.

"I will tell you that I don't believe in gay marriage, but I do think that people who are gay and lesbian should be treated with dignity and respect and that the state should not discriminate against them," said Obama on Sunday. "So, I believe in civil unions that allow a same-sex couple to visit each other in a hospital or transfer property to each other. I don't think it should be called marriage, but I think that it is a legal right that they should have that is recognized by the state. If people find that controversial then I would just refer them to the Sermon on the Mount, which I think is, in my mind, for my faith, more central than an obscure passage in Romans. That's my view."

Obama also has been more aggressive in framing his pro-abortion position previously than he was on Sunday. When he was in the Illinois Senate, for example, he repeatedly opposed a bill that would have defined as a "person" a baby who had survived an induced-labor abortion and was born alive.

In a 2001 Illinois Senate floor speech about that bill, he argued that to call a baby who survived an abortion a "person" would give it equal protection rights under the 14th Amendment and would give credibility to the argument that the same child inside its mother's womb was also a "person" and thus could not be aborted.

When the Illinois Senate bill was amended to make it identical to a federal law that included language to protect Roe v. Wade--and that the U.S. Senate voted unanimously to pass--Obama still opposed the bill, voting it down in the Illinois Senate committee he chaired.

Yet, in Ohio on Sunday, Obama depicted abortion as a tragedy to be avoided, while being kept legal.

"On the issue of abortion, that is always a tragic and painful issue," he said. "I think it is always tragic, and we should prevent it as much as possible .... But I think that the bottom line is that in the end, I think women, in consultation with their pastors, and their doctors, and their family, are in a better position to make these decisions than some bureaucrat in Washington. That's my view. Again, I respect people who may disagree, but I certainly don't think it makes me less Christian. Okay."

Before discussing his views on same-sex unions and abortion, Obama told the crowd he was a "devout Christian."

"In terms of my faith, there has been so much confusion that has been deliberately perpetrated through emails and so forth, so here are the simple facts," he said. "I am a Christian. I am a devout Christian. I have been a member of the same church for 20 years, pray to Jesus every night, and try to go to church as much as I can when they are not working me. Used to go quite often.

"These days, we haven't been at the home church--I haven't been home on Sunday--for several months now. So, my faith is important to me. It is not something that I try to push on other people. But it is something that helps to guide my life and my values."

Linky

[lukeduke 8]

So, he disregards all scripture that specifically mention a man and woman entering marriage.

By the way, the following link is the entire text of the Sermon on the Mount...I am struggling to find the section he is referring to.

http://www.bartleby.com/108/40/5.html

[bojack34 2]

It also includes a warning: "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves."

[RunInRed 16,487]

For the record - civil unions are not about condemning or condoning traditional marriage. They are about equal treatment of all citizens. Why should someone get more or less rights because of their sexual orientation?

[BamaGrad03 0]

Honestly (and they may revoke my republican card for this)...I don't have a problem with civil unions. I think Obama is beyond wrong in thinking that there's anything Biblical that approves of homosexuality...

And I think homosexuality is immoral. But I also think those people struggle with sin like all of us. So to single them out as if we don't all have our own shortcomings is unfair.

Civil unions for insurance benefits, hospital visitation rights etc have nothing to do with marraige and I'm not outright opposed to them. Marraige is and should always be sacred...and I'm strictly opposed to gay marraige.

[bojack34 2]

For the record - civil unions are not about condemning or condoning traditional marriage. They are about equal treatment of all citizens. Why should someone get more or less rights because of their sexual orientation?

If you believe what you say then I guess we should do away with the entire judicial system. We should just make a new set of laws so that everyone feels better about themselves. Convicted child molesters should be allowed to adopt as well I guess.

[WinCrimson 61]

For the record - civil unions are not about condemning or condoning traditional marriage. They are about equal treatment of all citizens. Why should someone get more or less rights because of their sexual orientation?

If you believe what you say then I guess we should do away with the entire judicial system. We should just make a new set of laws so that everyone feels better about themselves. Convicted child molesters should be allowed to adopt as well I guess.

Big difference in someone molesting a child and two, consenting adults living their own private lives.

By the way, doesn't the "condemnation" of homosexuality that your crew is always talking about occur in Leviticus? Isn't Leviticus in the Old Testament? Isn't that the old law? If you still wish to follow the old law, then you better throw out all of your shirts that are not 100% cotton, quit eating shrimp, and hope that you haven't planted your tomatoes and potatoes in the same garden.

Disclaimer: I'm not gay and have no homosexual tendencies whatsoever. Just presenting my point of view on a wedge issue that I think is the most pointless and stupid ever.

Props to Obama for speaking up on the issue as well as abortion rights. He certainly stands out amongst crowd of lukewarm Dems for doing so.

[BZ770 2]

Hey I liked Obama till now, but I cannot condone this view. I am now switching to McCain

[BamaGrad03 0]

Isn't Leviticus in the Old Testament?

It's in Romans too.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

Obama is a highly intelligent person on many matters. But theology isn't his strong suit.

[WinCrimson 61]

Isn't Leviticus in the Old Testament?

It's in Romans too.

Do you mind pointing it out to me?

I'm not disputing you, btw.

[BamaGrad03 0]

Isn't Leviticus in the Old Testament?

It's in Romans too.

Do you mind pointing it out to me?

I'm not disputing you, btw.

Romans 1:26-27

"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence [sic] of their error which was meet"

[WinCrimson 61]

Wasn't aware that the topic was addressed anywhere outside of Leviticus... Learn something everyday.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

I Corinthians 6:9-11

9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

1 Timothy 1:8-11

8 Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, 9 understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, 10 the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, 11 in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.

[BamaGrad03 0]

Titan, what do you think about the whole civil union thing.

[BZ770 2]

Genesis 2:24-25 says, “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

In Romans 1:26-27 Paul is very specific, “For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.”

[TitanTiger 20,511]

Part of me is ok with what it ostensibly does: allow people to decide who gets to be treated as their next of kin for inheritance matters, hospital visitation, etc. I don't know that you need a civil union to accomplish that and frankly doesn't have to be limited to homosexual relationships. Why not be able to easily draw up a contract of some sort that confers all those rights to your best friend (even if you both are hetero)? But if that's all it is, fine.

The other part knows this is the camel's nose under the tent flap. It's an incremental strategy to make homosexuality be deemed more normal and legitimate. I don't think it will stop here. There are other countries in the world that started here, went right on to marriage a little while later and now even oppress and threaten ministers and other Christians that speak out against homosexual conduct. Yeah I'm talking to you, Sweden and I'm hearing the same rumblings from Canada.

As Pat Buchanan once said, "it [homosexuality] used to be the love that dare not speak its name. Now it's the love that won't shut up."

[WinCrimson 61]

For the record - civil unions are not about condemning or condoning traditional marriage. They are about equal treatment of all citizens. Why should someone get more or less rights because of their sexual orientation?

If you believe what you say then I guess we should do away with the entire judicial system. We should just make a new set of laws so that everyone feels better about themselves. Convicted child molesters should be allowed to adopt as well I guess.

Big difference in someone molesting a child and two, consenting adults living their own private lives.

By the way, doesn't the "condemnation" of homosexuality that your crew is always talking about occur in Leviticus? Isn't Leviticus in the Old Testament? Isn't that the old law? If you still wish to follow the old law, then you better throw out all of your shirts that are not 100% cotton, quit eating shrimp, and hope that you haven't planted your tomatoes and potatoes in the same garden.

Disclaimer: I'm not gay and have no homosexual tendencies whatsoever. Just presenting my point of view on a wedge issue that I think is the most pointless and stupid ever.

Props to Obama for speaking up on the issue as well as abortion rights. He certainly stands out amongst crowd of lukewarm Dems for doing so.

In case you didn't read the article Obama said they should be able to adopt. So my point still stands and if you ever decide to you can look in the book of Romans for some New Testament scripture on homosexuality but I suppose your mind is already made up. Love the sinner hate the sin and I feel the same way about adultry which most people including myself are guilty of. It's in the New Testament as well.

I did read the article, and I agree with him in that I think gays should be able to adopt. I don't think it's right that perfectly capable people are denied the opportunity to give a child a home simply because of their sexual preference. That's not the message we should be sending in America, year 2008. If it is the message you wish to send, then state legislatures and voters should rally to outlaw divorce, as well. The Bible doesn't exactly speak favorably on that topic, does it? At least show some consistency, eh?

I may have misunderstood you, but how are most of us guilty of adultery? Was that a reference to premarital sex?

[bojack34 2]

For the record - civil unions are not about condemning or condoning traditional marriage. They are about equal treatment of all citizens. Why should someone get more or less rights because of their sexual orientation?

If you believe what you say then I guess we should do away with the entire judicial system. We should just make a new set of laws so that everyone feels better about themselves. Convicted child molesters should be allowed to adopt as well I guess.

Big difference in someone molesting a child and two, consenting adults living their own private lives.

By the way, doesn't the "condemnation" of homosexuality that your crew is always talking about occur in Leviticus? Isn't Leviticus in the Old Testament? Isn't that the old law? If you still wish to follow the old law, then you better throw out all of your shirts that are not 100% cotton, quit eating shrimp, and hope that you haven't planted your tomatoes and potatoes in the same garden.

Disclaimer: I'm not gay and have no homosexual tendencies whatsoever. Just presenting my point of view on a wedge issue that I think is the most pointless and stupid ever.

Props to Obama for speaking up on the issue as well as abortion rights. He certainly stands out amongst crowd of lukewarm Dems for doing so.

Obama stated that homosexuals should be able to adopt so my point is why not go ahead and allow convicted child molesters to do the same. My point is if you allow this you are just opening up a whole new can of worms. Imagine a world with nothing but homosexuals. You can't because if everyone was homosexual mankind would die off. Reproduction would cease.

[bojack34 2]

For the record - civil unions are not about condemning or condoning traditional marriage. They are about equal treatment of all citizens. Why should someone get more or less rights because of their sexual orientation?

If you believe what you say then I guess we should do away with the entire judicial system. We should just make a new set of laws so that everyone feels better about themselves. Convicted child molesters should be allowed to adopt as well I guess.

Big difference in someone molesting a child and two, consenting adults living their own private lives.

By the way, doesn't the "condemnation" of homosexuality that your crew is always talking about occur in Leviticus? Isn't Leviticus in the Old Testament? Isn't that the old law? If you still wish to follow the old law, then you better throw out all of your shirts that are not 100% cotton, quit eating shrimp, and hope that you haven't planted your tomatoes and potatoes in the same garden.

Disclaimer: I'm not gay and have no homosexual tendencies whatsoever. Just presenting my point of view on a wedge issue that I think is the most pointless and stupid ever.

Props to Obama for speaking up on the issue as well as abortion rights. He certainly stands out amongst crowd of lukewarm Dems for doing so.

In case you didn't read the article Obama said they should be able to adopt. So my point still stands and if you ever decide to you can look in the book of Romans for some New Testament scripture on homosexuality but I suppose your mind is already made up. Love the sinner hate the sin and I feel the same way about adultry which most people including myself are guilty of. It's in the New Testament as well.

I did read the article, and I agree with him in that I think gays should be able to adopt. I don't think it's right that perfectly capable people are denied the opportunity to give a child a home simply because of their sexual preference. That's not the message we should be sending in America, year 2008. If it is the message you wish to send, then state legislatures and voters should rally to outlaw divorce, as well. The Bible doesn't exactly speak favorably on that topic, does it? At least show some consistency, eh?

I may have misunderstood you, but how are most of us guilty of adultery? Was that a reference to premarital sex?

Mathew 5:28 - But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. As far as divorce goes the only way it should be allowed is what the bible says about it. Matthew 5:31,32-31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: 32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

[WinCrimson 61]

Why let gays adopt but not child molesters? Gays are not any more prone to be child molesters than straight people. Like I said earlier, what two consenting adults do in their own private lives is their own business and in no way affects their ability to raise a child. We've allowed the term "gay" to be synonymous with "pedophile", and that's a big mistake. I wouldn't have a problem leaving my future kids with any of the few gays I know. I can't say the same about all of the straight people I know.

Breaking away from the British crown opened up a whole new of worms. The passage of the 19th amendment opened up a whole new can of worms. Civil rights was just one big opening of a can of worms. I'm not meaning to offend you, bojack, but your argument is prehistoric. I respect your views because I know they're heartfelt and deeply held, but the idea that social change is nothing more than "opening a can of worms" just doesn't fly. As much as we scoff at the ideas of radical changes in society, it's helped to secure many of the liberties we often take for granted.

As for reproduction, it's untrue that in a world consisting entirely of homosexuals would result in the end of the human race. In the ancient days, this would have been true. You don't actually have to have sexual intercourse with a person to conceive a child. Not that this situation will ever be a reality, but nonetheless...

[BZ770 2]

I believe that you choose to be gay, You are not born that way. When steve and steve are raising a child then they'll grow up warped in the head thinking that he must like Bob because his 2 dads do.

[bojack34 2]

Why let gays adopt but not child molesters? Gays are not any more prone to be child molesters than straight people. Like I said earlier, what two consenting adults do in their own private lives is their own business and in no way affects their ability to raise a child. We've allowed the term "gay" to be synonymous with "pedophile", and that's a big mistake. I wouldn't have a problem leaving my future kids with any of the few gays I know. I can't say the same about all of the straight people I know.

Breaking away from the British crown opened up a whole new of worms. The passage of the 19th amendment opened up a whole new can of worms. Civil rights was just one big opening of a can of worms. I'm not meaning to offend you, bojack, but your argument is prehistoric. I respect your views because I know they're heartfelt and deeply held, but the idea that social change is nothing more than "opening a can of worms" just doesn't fly. As much as we scoff at the ideas of radical changes in society, it's helped to secure many of the liberties we often take for granted.

As for reproduction, it's untrue that in a world consisting entirely of homosexuals would result in the end of the human race. In the ancient days, this would have been true. You don't actually have to have sexual intercourse with a person to conceive a child. Not that this situation will ever be a reality, but nonetheless...

Look according to the Bible which I believe to be the inspired Word of God homosexuality is no more or no less of a sin than molesting a child. I am not saying a homosexual would molest a child any more than a heterosexual. There is no gray area with God.

[WinCrimson 61]

For the record - civil unions are not about condemning or condoning traditional marriage. They are about equal treatment of all citizens. Why should someone get more or less rights because of their sexual orientation?

If you believe what you say then I guess we should do away with the entire judicial system. We should just make a new set of laws so that everyone feels better about themselves. Convicted child molesters should be allowed to adopt as well I guess.

Big difference in someone molesting a child and two, consenting adults living their own private lives.

By the way, doesn't the "condemnation" of homosexuality that your crew is always talking about occur in Leviticus? Isn't Leviticus in the Old Testament? Isn't that the old law? If you still wish to follow the old law, then you better throw out all of your shirts that are not 100% cotton, quit eating shrimp, and hope that you haven't planted your tomatoes and potatoes in the same garden.

Disclaimer: I'm not gay and have no homosexual tendencies whatsoever. Just presenting my point of view on a wedge issue that I think is the most pointless and stupid ever.

Props to Obama for speaking up on the issue as well as abortion rights. He certainly stands out amongst crowd of lukewarm Dems for doing so.

In case you didn't read the article Obama said they should be able to adopt. So my point still stands and if you ever decide to you can look in the book of Romans for some New Testament scripture on homosexuality but I suppose your mind is already made up. Love the sinner hate the sin and I feel the same way about adultry which most people including myself are guilty of. It's in the New Testament as well.

I did read the article, and I agree with him in that I think gays should be able to adopt. I don't think it's right that perfectly capable people are denied the opportunity to give a child a home simply because of their sexual preference. That's not the message we should be sending in America, year 2008. If it is the message you wish to send, then state legislatures and voters should rally to outlaw divorce, as well. The Bible doesn't exactly speak favorably on that topic, does it? At least show some consistency, eh?

I may have misunderstood you, but how are most of us guilty of adultery? Was that a reference to premarital sex?

Mathew 5:28 - But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. As far as divorce goes the only way it should be allowed is what the bible says about it. Matthew 5:31,32-31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: 32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

Since your quoting from the Bible, I have to tell that you've raised a good point.

Yet, do you really think you're going to garner much support for the elimination of divorce? And if not, why not? Due to situations like this, it's often hard for me to believe that anti-gay opinions aren't based on hate more times than not. Given the fact that you are consistent with your beliefs, I'll grant you a pass.

The verse you provided on adultery doesn't resonate with me at all. If I look at a girl and think she's hot, I've sinned? God "crafted her in his own image" and now I can't even admire her beauty? Maybe I'm not fully understanding your point, but I love me some co-eds. All of us do. And since this is supposedly a "Christian nation", should the government outlaw racy clothing and pornography? Once again, you can't just go after the gays and ignore everyone else, especially when there are more girls right now in bars sporting low cut tops than the overall number of gays.

While we disagree, I really enjoy having these types of discussions. It's taboo out in the real world, but good to know that there are people that can discuss matters of religion and politics civilly. You're one of the good guys, bojack.

[bojack34 2]

For the record - civil unions are not about condemning or condoning traditional marriage. They are about equal treatment of all citizens. Why should someone get more or less rights because of their sexual orientation?

If you believe what you say then I guess we should do away with the entire judicial system. We should just make a new set of laws so that everyone feels better about themselves. Convicted child molesters should be allowed to adopt as well I guess.

Big difference in someone molesting a child and two, consenting adults living their own private lives.

By the way, doesn't the "condemnation" of homosexuality that your crew is always talking about occur in Leviticus? Isn't Leviticus in the Old Testament? Isn't that the old law? If you still wish to follow the old law, then you better throw out all of your shirts that are not 100% cotton, quit eating shrimp, and hope that you haven't planted your tomatoes and potatoes in the same garden.

Disclaimer: I'm not gay and have no homosexual tendencies whatsoever. Just presenting my point of view on a wedge issue that I think is the most pointless and stupid ever.

Props to Obama for speaking up on the issue as well as abortion rights. He certainly stands out amongst crowd of lukewarm Dems for doing so.

In case you didn't read the article Obama said they should be able to adopt. So my point still stands and if you ever decide to you can look in the book of Romans for some New Testament scripture on homosexuality but I suppose your mind is already made up. Love the sinner hate the sin and I feel the same way about adultry which most people including myself are guilty of. It's in the New Testament as well.

I did read the article, and I agree with him in that I think gays should be able to adopt. I don't think it's right that perfectly capable people are denied the opportunity to give a child a home simply because of their sexual preference. That's not the message we should be sending in America, year 2008. If it is the message you wish to send, then state legislatures and voters should rally to outlaw divorce, as well. The Bible doesn't exactly speak favorably on that topic, does it? At least show some consistency, eh?

I may have misunderstood you, but how are most of us guilty of adultery? Was that a reference to premarital sex?

Mathew 5:28 - But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. As far as divorce goes the only way it should be allowed is what the bible says about it. Matthew 5:31,32-31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: 32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

Since your quoting from the Bible, I have to tell that you've raised a good point.

Yet, do you really think you're going to garner much support for the elimination of divorce? And if not, why not? Due to situations like this, it's often hard for me to believe that anti-gay opinions aren't based on hate more times than not. Given the fact that you are consistent with your beliefs, I'll grant you a pass.

The verse you provided on adultery doesn't resonate with me at all. If I look at a girl and think she's hot, I've sinned? God "crafted her in his own image" and now I can't even admire her beauty? Maybe I'm not fully understanding your point, but I love me some co-eds. All of us do. And since this is supposedly a "Christian nation", should the government outlaw racy clothing and pornography? Once again, you can't just go after the gays and ignore everyone else, especially when there are more girls right now in bars sporting low cut tops than the overall number of gays.

While we disagree, I really enjoy having these types of discussions. It's taboo out in the real world, but good to know that there are people that can discuss matters of religion and politics civilly. You're one of the good guys, bojack.

It is okay to look at woman of beauty as long as you don't lust after her. In other words don't fantasize about having sexual relations with her. Nice to know we can have a civil debate on this board. Hey I'm with you on the fact that some laws will not garner much support and I realize that. I wouldn't mind seeing a law banning porn and racy clothing but I realize that is not going to happen. And according to the word of God things are going to get a lot worse and I accept that but I must do my part as a Christian to voice my opinion whether it be by voting or other civil means. I respect your opinions and thoughts although we may disagree.