Obama on same sex marriage

[WinCrimson 61]

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.

That argument doesn't work, BZ. Do you think that adult gays are that way because there parents were... oh, gee, straight? If straight parents were guaranteed of having straight children, you would have a point.

bojack34:

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.

Then your post was a poor application of your beliefs. I have no way of disproving that your placement of "homosexuality" and "child molestation" in the same sentence was intentional, but it's hard for me to believe that it wasn't. You could have easily used any other sin, but yet, chose the stereotype that is unfairly connected to gays.

[WinCrimson 61]

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.

Sheesh. I don't know how we're going to police that.

You wanna write up the proposal for the bill and start writing your Congressperson?

[bojack34 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.

That argument doesn't work, BZ. Do you think that adult gays are that way because there parents were... oh, gee, straight? If straight parents were guaranteed of having straight children, you would have a point.

bojack34:

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.

Then your post was a poor application of your beliefs. I have no way of disproving that your placement of "homosexuality" and "child molestation" in the same sentence was intentional, but it's hard for me to believe that it wasn't. You could have easily used any other sin, but yet, chose the stereotype that is unfairly connected to gays.

The reason I used child molesters as a comparison is because I have seen what it does to someone you love firsthand and I guess that was what come to my mind. You are right I could have used deadbeat dads or moms as an example. As for the lusting topic I could answer that with another verse and I can tell you from experience it is not as complicated as you might think. I believe it is in Proverbs 4:23- I am paraphrasing but it says "to be careful to control your thoughts because out of it becomes your actions." I have to pray many times a day for the Holy Spirit to guard my mind from evil thoughts and it works. Not to say that I don't fail occasionally and allow an evil thought to enter my mind but that usually only happens when I am not focused on God and I let my guard down.

[bojack34 2]

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.

Sheesh. I don't know how we're going to police that.

You wanna write up the proposal for the bill and start writing your Congressperson?

LOL! Would it be much stranger than most of the bills that are written?

[WinCrimson 61]

Yeah.

I get really frustrated that when in Madison, I can't buy pecans on Tuesdays within 100 yards of a school. Sucks.

[BamaGrad03 0]

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...

The advent of new technology doesn't instantly make something natural.

Just sayin.

But I'd also like to add in regards to the concept of the Bible looking at homosexuality the same way it looks at child molestation...sin is sin is sin. The Bible doesn't look different on homosexuality than it does gluttony, or lying, or lust.

It's not fair to judge someone on THEIR vice, while ignoring our own...just because we happen to not be tempted by the one in which they fall prey.

[DKW 86 7,441]

As BG said, sin is sin is sin. Unfortunately today we have washed the social stigmas away from the sin of homsexuality and many more sins too, premarital sex, gluttony, adultery etc.

I can see my gluttony as a sin. No questions. I therefore can give grace to those that can me grace. Acknowledging your own sin lets you forgive others far more easily and stops you from being judgmental toward others too. The problem I see is, as BG said, now it is not enough to tolerate homosexuality and other sins. No, these days we must not only tolerate them, we must endorse, approve, and even help pay and sometimes even celebrate the sin.

Again, ageeing with BG, I think most Christians would endorse 100% the legal concepts of Civil Unions if that was all this was about. It is not. When we finally do get Civil Unions, we will then be set upon by those that want to force us to allow gay marriage. Civil Unions are just the first step. The activists will never be satisfied when we only tolerate it. The sin must be supported, endorsed, paid for, celebrated, etc. to satisfy the activists in the US today.

[TexasTiger 13,026]

Again, ageeing with BG, I think most Christians would endorse 100% the legal concepts of Civil Unions if that wa all this was about. It is not. When we finally do get Civil Unions, we will then be set upon by those that want to force us to allow gay marriage. Civil Unions are just the first step. The activists will never be satisfied until we not only tolerate it. The sin must be supported, endorsed, paid for, celebrated, etc.

I doubt your figures. But what if all the state provided any couple was a legal contract, i.e. civil union. Leave the concept of marriage to churches to bestow as they see fit?

[arnaldoabru 11]

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.

Wow convicted child molesters and homosexuals should be able to adopt.

One are people convicted of a horrendus crime against childern

The other, are just gay.

Judges 19:22-29

[otterinbham 0]

Okay. As a happily married, totally hetero person who sits on the vestry of the church, is in Bible study every week, helps the homeless, etc. etc., I have to ask this question:

How is this the business of the government? Seriously. I mean I'm fascinated how you guys can sit here on a daily basis and fulminate against the government interfering in your lives, and then turn around and endorse full-scale government intervention in the personal lives of consenting adults. I don't get it.

Hey, I don't approve of the homosexual lifestyle. In fact, I don't even understand it. Then again, my elderly, Baptist next-door neighbors disapprove of my nightly glass of beer or wine, and cluck their tongues that my wife and I will watch the occasional R-rated movie. In fact, just yesterday, we all witnessed a full-scale debate on whether or not 13% alcohol content in beer was sinful, with legislators o'plenty basically trying to decide what's moral and what's not on our behalf. But it's simply not their business. And what two gay men or women do to set up housekeeping is not my business, either, as long as they're not running naked out on their front yard shrieking, "Surrender, Dorothy!" at the top of their lungs.

I also think it is absurd to conflate homosexuality with child molestation. Child molesters can be gay, straight, and bi. My wife's extended family has an married uncle with seven kids who has molested his daughters and exposed himself to various female family members of the years. Yet they refuse to report the bastard to the authorities. I won't allow him in my house, or near my kids. And he knows with absolute certainty that if he ever comes within a country mile of my 13-year-old daughter, I'll cut off his balls with a spoon that's been sharpened on the driveway. Yet he's as hetero as they get.

[AUTiger1 0]

Okay. As a happily married, totally hetero person who sits on the vestry of the church, is in Bible study every week, helps the homeless, etc. etc., I have to ask this question:

How is this the business of the government? Seriously. I mean I'm fascinated how you guys can sit here on a daily basis and fulminate against the government interfering in your lives, and then turn around and endorse full-scale government intervention in the personal lives of consenting adults. I don't get it.

Hey, I don't approve of the homosexual lifestyle. In fact, I don't even understand it. Then again, my elderly, Baptist next-door neighbors disapprove of my nightly glass of beer or wine, and cluck their tongues that my wife and I will watch the occasional R-rated movie. In fact, just yesterday, we all witnessed a full-scale debate on whether or not 13% alcohol content in beer was sinful, with legislators o'plenty basically trying to decide what's moral and what's not on our behalf. But it's simply not their business. And what two gay men or women do to set up housekeeping is not my business, either, as long as they're not running naked out on their front yard shrieking, "Surrender, Dorothy!" at the top of their lungs.

I also think it is absurd to conflate homosexuality with child molestation. Child molesters can be gay, straight, and bi. My wife's extended family has an married uncle with seven kids who has molested his daughters and exposed himself to various female family members of the years. Yet they refuse to report the bastard to the authorities. I won't allow him in my house, or near my kids. And he knows with absolute certainty that if he ever comes within a country mile of my 13-year-old daughter, I'll cut off his balls with a spoon that's been sharpened on the driveway. Yet he's as hetero as they get.

Great Post!

[lukeduke 8]

, as long as they're not running naked out on their front yard shrieking, "Surrender, Dorothy!" at the top of their lungs.

Great Post!

I agree, great post...but I was a little disturbed by some of your imagery.

[otterinbham 0]

, as long as they're not running naked out on their front yard shrieking, "Surrender, Dorothy!" at the top of their lungs.

Great Post!

I agree, great post...but I was a little disturbed by some of your imagery.

Yeah, but a pretty damned funny line, you have to admit.

[AUTiger1 0]

, as long as they're not running naked out on their front yard shrieking, "Surrender, Dorothy!" at the top of their lungs.

Great Post!

I agree, great post...but I was a little disturbed by some of your imagery.

Yeah, but a pretty damned funny line, you have to admit.

It was funny. It was the whole driveway sharpened spoon thing that made me cringe.

[DKW 86 7,441]

Again, ageeing with BG, I think most Christians would endorse 100% the legal concepts of Civil Unions if that wa all this was about. It is not. When we finally do get Civil Unions, we will then be set upon by those that want to force us to allow gay marriage. Civil Unions are just the first step. The activists will never be satisfied until we not only tolerate it. The sin must be supported, endorsed, paid for, celebrated, etc.

I doubt your figures. But what if all the state provided any couple was a legal contract, i.e. civil union. Leave the concept of marriage to churches to bestow as they see fit?

Perfectly fine by me. I dont really think that a marriage by a civil authority can be seen as "Sacred" anyhow.

PS: dont see how being 'gay' is on the same level as 'child molester' either. But as I said before, as BG said above sin is sin is sin. If you can get that the 'little' sin will remove you from the eyes of God just as fast as being a child molester than you get the Big Picture.

As BG said: sin is sin is sin. Any sin, large or small, will remove you from the eyes of God the Father until it is dealt with.

[CircleDrill 178]

How is this the business of the government? Seriously. I mean I'm fascinated how you guys can sit here on a daily basis and fulminate against the government interfering in your lives, and then turn around and endorse full-scale government intervention in the personal lives of consenting adults. I don't get it.

Exactly right.

Add to this that the only way a President can really do anything is through his veto and appointment of Supreme Court judges... What exactly is it that you want him to veto?

I really don't see why anyone cares what any candidate's position on gay marriage is. It's a stupid issue and one where some people are trying to use the government to tell other people what to do, which is just about as un-American as you can get. Also.... there's a war going on....and a recession....and our schools are a mess. Those are far more important than who a gay guy can marry.

I am not for or against it. I simply don't give a rip. You same people that say that government should ban gay marriage are the same people that want smoking banned from all public places, and are all up in arms because somebody wants to force you to drive a car that gets better gas mileage. What is the difference? It's all one group trying to tell another group what do do by using the government as their mouthpiece. In other words, YOU are one of those special interests that you "hate" so much.

This is the whole reason people fled Europe at great peril to themselves and their families to come here and start a country where they were free.

[arnaldoabru 11]

You'll see more and more of this type stuff as the election gets closer from the Republicans;gay marriege,flag burning,their taking Christ out of Christmas,affirmative action,Obama's a Muslem,if you don't vote for us we will be attacked again,etc....

Good post Otto, by the way.

[otterinbham 0]

You'll see more and more of this type stuff as the election gets closer from the Republicans;gay marriege,flag burning,their taking Christ out of Christmas,affirmative action,Obama's a Muslem,if you don't vote for us we will be attacked again,etc....

Good post Otto, by the way.

Hahahaha. As if Hillary isn't using a few of those right now?

Look, both sides love to trot out their incendiary phrases. You know...rich get richer, poor get poorer; 9/11 was a conspiracy; stolen election; white collar jobs going to Bangalore; and the what not. I just shake my head at the lunatic fringe of both parties.

[bojack34 2]

Sitting on the vestry of your church, attending church every Sunday, etc. doesn't make you a Christian it just makes you religious. Look, you can call me lunatic or whatever words come to mind but the fact still remains we as Christians(which means to be Christlike) are all called to the ministry of reconciliation. My point was exactly what BG and DKW said and that is in God's eyes a sin is a sin. It is our job as Christians to spread the truth and we are warned that in the last days people will harden their hearts to the truth. We are also commanded to love the sinner and we must give them forgiveness so that we may be forgiven. But the point somehow got lost that Obama tried to fool people by using the Sermon on the Mount as a free pass for people to do whatever they want. The Sermon on the Mount is for the saints, and it explains their suffering and their reward as a result of suffering for what is right for Christ's sake. It doesn't give blessings or approval to homosexual unions.

[otterinbham 0]

Sitting on the vestry of your church, attending church every Sunday, etc. doesn't make you a Christian it just makes you religious. Look, you can call me lunatic or whatever words come to mind but the fact still remains we as Christians(which means to be Christlike) are all called to the ministry of reconciliation. My point was exactly what BG and DKW said and that is in God's eyes a sin is a sin. It is our job as Christians to spread the truth and we are warned that in the last days people will harden their hearts to the truth. We are also commanded to love the sinner and we must give them forgiveness so that we may be forgiven. But the point somehow got lost that Obama tried to fool people by using the Sermon on the Mount as a free pass for people to do whatever they want. The Sermon on the Mount is for the saints, and it explains their suffering and their reward as a result of suffering for what is right for Christ's sake. It doesn't give blessings or approval to homosexual unions.

Arrogant is actually the term I would employ. I'm sorry, but you don't have the first notion of the depth of my faith, and I really think you need to back off.

Second of all I know that Christ said render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and render unto God what is God's. There are lots of things I can personally disapprove of in the realm of my faith, but can't outlaw in the secular world. If so, I would be outlawing lots of things that, in my opinion, no serious Christian can endorse, such as the ownership of handguns or the existence of country clubs that prohibit blacks and jews from membership. Hey, while we're at it, let's just run down the list of everything that's prohibited in Leviticus. That means you can't wear a garment made of two different fabrics, you can't enjoy a barbecue pork sandwich, your wife can't come to church during her period, and you can't enjoy shrimp. Heck, and if you practice the withdrawal method during sex with your wife, then you are in defiance with God. After all, look what happened to Onan.

What's more, if you really want to proscribe activity based on religious convictions, then you're going to trot out an awfully long list. Let's add dancing and card playing, too, while we're at it. Hey, let's prohibit alcohol, too. Wait, we tried doing that with the 19th Amendment. Boy, that was a stellar success. And since large tracts of the country are predominantly Catholic, let's outlaw birth control and the eating of fish on Friday. And God help us if the Mormons ever decided to inflict their version of what is right and true doctrine on the rest of the country.

My point was a simple one. This is a secular republic, precisely because we have so many different religious denominations, each one claiming to possess the whole truth as if it were a piece of the true cross. That also means that no faith gets to ram its ideas down anybody's throats. Practice your faith as you see fit and leave everybody else the heck alone.

[MDM4AU 336]

If so, I would be outlawing lots of things that, in my opinion, no serious Christian can endorse, such as the ownership of handguns

Interesting...why do you feel this way? Outside of this I think you make some very good points.

[arnaldoabru 11]

No pork sandwiches.I always thought Chuck's were good.

[otterinbham 0]

If so, I would be outlawing lots of things that, in my opinion, no serious Christian can endorse, such as the ownership of handguns

Interesting...why do you feel this way? Outside of this I think you make some very good points.

I really don't want to bring the NRA down on me here, but where in Christ's teachings does it say we should be armed? After all, there are branches of Christendom such as the Quakers, Amish, and Mennonites who believe this. Now, from a practical and worldly viewpoint, there are reasons to own weapons. But since we're talking about imposing all the biblical prohibitions and scriptural ideals on human society, we might as well discuss it, right?

[bigsixfive 328]

I really don't want to bring the NRA down on me here, but where in Christ's teachings does it say we should be armed? After all, there are branches of Christendom such as the Quakers, Amish, and Mennonites who believe this. Now, from a practical and worldly viewpoint, there are reasons to own weapons. But since we're talking about imposing all the biblical prohibitions and scriptural ideals on human society, we might as well discuss it, right?

Peter had a weapon. He couldn't use it very well, but he had one.

[otterinbham 0]

I really don't want to bring the NRA down on me here, but where in Christ's teachings does it say we should be armed? After all, there are branches of Christendom such as the Quakers, Amish, and Mennonites who believe this. Now, from a practical and worldly viewpoint, there are reasons to own weapons. But since we're talking about imposing all the biblical prohibitions and scriptural ideals on human society, we might as well discuss it, right?

Peter had a weapon. He couldn't use it very well, but he had one.

And was forbidden to use it, even though it was recognized how dire Christ's situation was.

But all that is really beside the point. If Amish, Mennonites or Quakers predominate in a community (Say Lancaster County in Pennsylvania) do they have a right to outlaw handguns, thereby forcing their own values upon that of the community?