Obama approves of gay marriage
- Thread starter Lee
- Start date
I personally have no problems with gay marriage. However I am interested that as a Christian do you just pick a choose which bits of the Bible you believe and which bits you do not? My reason is that it clearly states that a man lying with another man is not the right thing to do.
Again I am not judging the many gays on this forum I am just questioning someone calling themselves a Christian but only following the bits of the religion that he wants. I also like Lee (Nick) to, just curious of the answer
Again I am not judging the many gays on this forum I am just questioning someone calling themselves a Christian but only following the bits of the religion that he wants. I also like Lee (Nick) to, just curious of the answer
The Bible also says you should only wear clothes made of one material and "Slaves, be obedient to those who are your masters". Individual passages that go against the message the Bible conveys can and should be ignored.
Lee
Is it a bird? Is it a plane? No it's Supermod!
I believe the New Testament teaches that Old Testament Law is fulfilled through Jesus' death and resurrection.
In the new testament the mentions of it are dubious at best and looking at the context of it being written (by Paul to Greeks) it makes sense. Why? During that time the Greeks were having gay sex instead of sex with their wives thus lowering the population.
So, he went from being for it (1996 Illinois Congressional questionaire) to being against it (2004/2008 campaigns) to being for it again? Why is it when he reverses positions twice, it's "evolving a position", but when Romney becomes pro-life, it's a Flip-Flop?
Now, I don't believe for a second that Obama was ever actually opposed to gay marriage. He was always in favor it, regardless of what his "official" position was. He only took the official position against it when asked is because he is a politician, and was afraid that coming out in favor of it in 2004 and 2008 would have been politically damaging, so he blatantly lied about his beliefs on the subject numerous times. He only said what he had to say in order to get elected, with absolutely no conviction behind it. Now he thinks that the culture in America is okay with the idea enough that it wouldn't hurt him politically as much as it would have previously.
It will be interesting to see how the mainstream media treats him now. Will they follow the lead of the White House and continue to call it an "evolution of position", with absolutely no negative connotations, or will they call him out for being a flip-flopper as they gleefully do with Romney switching sides on the abortion debate? If Obama can "evolve" his positions to take 180 degree turns from what he claimed before, (and then do it again) and get away with it, then everyone can just shut the hell up about any position changes Romney has had.
Anyone who bitches that Romney is a flip-flopper while at the same time believing the bullshit about Obama's position "evolving" as something other than a double flip-flop is a total hypocrite. I don't care if you support gay marriage or are adamantly opposed to it, you simply can't have it both ways. Either both Obama and Romney are serial flip-floppers, or both are simply "evolving their positions". You can't use two different sets of phrases to describe the exact same damn thing depending on which candidate you talk about.
In fact, thank you Mr. President, you just effectively killed a major democrat criticism of Mitt Romney by doing this, as you just gave republicans an obvious rebuttal.
Barack Obama said:
Barack Obama said:
Now, I don't believe for a second that Obama was ever actually opposed to gay marriage. He was always in favor it, regardless of what his "official" position was. He only took the official position against it when asked is because he is a politician, and was afraid that coming out in favor of it in 2004 and 2008 would have been politically damaging, so he blatantly lied about his beliefs on the subject numerous times. He only said what he had to say in order to get elected, with absolutely no conviction behind it. Now he thinks that the culture in America is okay with the idea enough that it wouldn't hurt him politically as much as it would have previously.
It will be interesting to see how the mainstream media treats him now. Will they follow the lead of the White House and continue to call it an "evolution of position", with absolutely no negative connotations, or will they call him out for being a flip-flopper as they gleefully do with Romney switching sides on the abortion debate? If Obama can "evolve" his positions to take 180 degree turns from what he claimed before, (and then do it again) and get away with it, then everyone can just shut the hell up about any position changes Romney has had.
Anyone who bitches that Romney is a flip-flopper while at the same time believing the bullshit about Obama's position "evolving" as something other than a double flip-flop is a total hypocrite. I don't care if you support gay marriage or are adamantly opposed to it, you simply can't have it both ways. Either both Obama and Romney are serial flip-floppers, or both are simply "evolving their positions". You can't use two different sets of phrases to describe the exact same damn thing depending on which candidate you talk about.
In fact, thank you Mr. President, you just effectively killed a major democrat criticism of Mitt Romney by doing this, as you just gave republicans an obvious rebuttal.
Romney (and his supporters) wouldn't call it flip-flopping either.
I apprectiate both your answers (Kotre and Nick). However I do believe that the Bible considers homosexuality to be a sin, no greater or less than any other sin but a sin none the less. On the otherhand the Bible does say not to judge others for their indescressions so I guess I will leave it up to the Big Guy to make the final call on each of us.
Also Kotre, What material is that? I wouldn't mind lounging about in silk if that is the choice material.
Also Kotre, What material is that? I wouldn't mind lounging about in silk if that is the choice material.
It's Damn Real!
The undisputed, undefeated TNA &
Marriage is a social construct not a religious one, and it's history predates Judeo-Christian mythologies. The greatest example of this is in Hinduism, which is nearly twice as old as either religion.
Good for Obama, for not clinging to intolerant, bigoted, backward Judeo-Christian zealotry like some do (here's looking at you, North Carolina!).
"It ain't the parts of the Bible that I can't understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand." - Mark Twain
Good for Obama, for not clinging to intolerant, bigoted, backward Judeo-Christian zealotry like some do (here's looking at you, North Carolina!).
"It ain't the parts of the Bible that I can't understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand." - Mark Twain
Lee
Is it a bird? Is it a plane? No it's Supermod!
It's in the old Testament. Clearly.
Leviticus 19:
VERSE EVERYONE KNOWS:
18 You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord.
You Shall Keep My Statutes
VERSE PEOPLE NEGLECT
19 “You shall keep my statutes. You shall not let your cattle breed with a different kind. You shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor shall you wear a garment of cloth made of two kinds of material.
So what you wearing? Is everything you're wearing 100% one material? If not you're a hypocrite.
He gave you a penis to pro create? I don't know.
For a man of science you seem to know a lot about religion, unless it is just google.
He gave you a penis to pro create? I don't know.
For a man of science you seem to know a lot about religion, unless it is just google.
I'm an atheist but I was raised a Christian. Not strictly, but I went to Sunday School and church for years. Also, the British education system is inherently Christian.
of course they wouldn't, but the democrats do. All I am really saying is that by reminding everyone of his own flip-flop on this issue, it essentially strips whatever power was in the Romney is a flip-flopper when it comes to abortion argument. Obama practically reminded everyone of the pot and the kettle calling each other black.
Of course Romney flip-flopped on the issue. He was pro-choice, then he was pro-life, that's what a political flip-flop looks like. It also looks like being for gay marriage then being against it, then being for it again. I have no problems stating that not only will I vote for Romney over Obama in November, but I will also call both of them flip-floppers. If I am going to accuse Obama of being a flip-flopper for changing his position, then so is Romney. I am just calling out the double standards that will occur in how each issue is being labeled.
Republicans giving Romney a free pass while excoriating Obama for flip-flopping are just as bad as Democrats giving Obama a free pass while excoriating Romney for it. Call them both flip-floppers, or call them both position evolvers. I don't care which. Just don't pretend that it's not flip-flopping when your candidate does it, but it is flip-flopping when the other candidate does it. A flip-flop is a flip-flop, regardless of which candidate you support.
Truer words were never spoken.
And here I was, in a skintight lycra catsuit, thinking I was being sinful. Well, that's a load off.
ÐаÑбоÑа
doesn't know REAL wrestling...
Why that homosexual, communist, Muslim, non-American negro!
The 1-2-3 Killam
Mid-Card Championship Winner
As happy as I am for the President of the United States to stand up in support for gay marriage -- it really does send a good, much-need message -- I can't take anything that comes out of the White House during an election season seriously.
In 2008 Obama was against gay marriage, and because of it he got some of the republican vote that didn't want to take sides with McCain (good for them!). At the same time, he also pledged to support a pro-choice bill and fund Planned Parenthood -- which he never did, even going so far as to come out against the bill once he had reached office. Nothing that is said or done, no statement or moral alignment, is ever what it appears to be. It's all a giant popularity contest, and right now he's fighting for one of the most important jobs in the world.
I'm not really pro-Obama, nor am I radically against him. He has several pros and cons, and to be honest I think he did a better job than McCain would have done. That said, if I had to align myself with a political party I'd probably go libertarian at this point. This large-government bullshit has got to end.
Also, on the topic of gay marriage in the Bible, the discussion is so full of holes already you might as well just stop. I'm not blaming you, I'm blaming the Bible in every translation into into English after 1910. America started the "holiness movement" and the shut-in conservative branch of Christianity, and with that any controversial "left wing" content in the Bible was "re-translated" because it "was better for God's plan".
Example: When Jesus blesses the Centurion and his servent, nobody sees anything wrong with that. In it's orignal translation, Jesus was in effect blessing a Centurion's gay lover. Now before you completely reject that, let me explain. Centurions in that culture were well known for being sexually ambiguous (read: promiscuous). In their time and understanding, there was no big issue between "gay sex" and "straight sex". The centurions were culterally well-known for having giant orgies with each other... Also, the original context mentions that the Centurion had 1,000's of servants. So why on earth would a guy with thousands of servants run to Jesus to have him heal ONE of them? They were peasants. Replaceable. But your translation of the Bible isn't going to tell you that, because "being gay is a sin". There is a word in the original Greek that could mean either "servant" or "gay lover" -- It sounds weird but it was an odd contextual thing we're never going to understand in 21st century perspective -- in the Bible the use the OTHER word for servant over 2 dozen times. They never use the word that is present in the Centurion story. That word is almost exclusively used for "gay lover" at one other place in the Bible, as well as several other literary works documented from the same time period as the gospels were written.
Trying to defend the old testament is a way bigger cluster fuck that I'm not even going to get into. Let this be a lesson to ya: about half of the stuff you hear in modern, evangelical conservative churches in 2012 is bullshit propagated by the modern church. It's not their fault, they don't know any better, because it's been going on for so damn long. How do I know this? I got half-way through my bullshit training and lessons, realized that with any good biblical study the things I was supposed to preach were absolute garbage, and quit.
In 2008 Obama was against gay marriage, and because of it he got some of the republican vote that didn't want to take sides with McCain (good for them!). At the same time, he also pledged to support a pro-choice bill and fund Planned Parenthood -- which he never did, even going so far as to come out against the bill once he had reached office. Nothing that is said or done, no statement or moral alignment, is ever what it appears to be. It's all a giant popularity contest, and right now he's fighting for one of the most important jobs in the world.
I'm not really pro-Obama, nor am I radically against him. He has several pros and cons, and to be honest I think he did a better job than McCain would have done. That said, if I had to align myself with a political party I'd probably go libertarian at this point. This large-government bullshit has got to end.
Also, on the topic of gay marriage in the Bible, the discussion is so full of holes already you might as well just stop. I'm not blaming you, I'm blaming the Bible in every translation into into English after 1910. America started the "holiness movement" and the shut-in conservative branch of Christianity, and with that any controversial "left wing" content in the Bible was "re-translated" because it "was better for God's plan".
Example: When Jesus blesses the Centurion and his servent, nobody sees anything wrong with that. In it's orignal translation, Jesus was in effect blessing a Centurion's gay lover. Now before you completely reject that, let me explain. Centurions in that culture were well known for being sexually ambiguous (read: promiscuous). In their time and understanding, there was no big issue between "gay sex" and "straight sex". The centurions were culterally well-known for having giant orgies with each other... Also, the original context mentions that the Centurion had 1,000's of servants. So why on earth would a guy with thousands of servants run to Jesus to have him heal ONE of them? They were peasants. Replaceable. But your translation of the Bible isn't going to tell you that, because "being gay is a sin". There is a word in the original Greek that could mean either "servant" or "gay lover" -- It sounds weird but it was an odd contextual thing we're never going to understand in 21st century perspective -- in the Bible the use the OTHER word for servant over 2 dozen times. They never use the word that is present in the Centurion story. That word is almost exclusively used for "gay lover" at one other place in the Bible, as well as several other literary works documented from the same time period as the gospels were written.
Trying to defend the old testament is a way bigger cluster fuck that I'm not even going to get into. Let this be a lesson to ya: about half of the stuff you hear in modern, evangelical conservative churches in 2012 is bullshit propagated by the modern church. It's not their fault, they don't know any better, because it's been going on for so damn long. How do I know this? I got half-way through my bullshit training and lessons, realized that with any good biblical study the things I was supposed to preach were absolute garbage, and quit.
What really irks me about this is that there are a LOT of ******s out there who will base their vote for or against Obama strictly because of his stance on this.
Anyways, of course I agree with him here. Anybody who pays taxes in this country deserve the benefits marriage brings.
Anyways, of course I agree with him here. Anybody who pays taxes in this country deserve the benefits marriage brings.
Because it's patronizing.
I thought they were voting against him because they were racists?
Or because they are the wealthy elite?
Or because cling to their religion and guns?
Between the Supreme Court battle over Obamacare, unemployment, the increase in the debt and all that, I actually doubt that Obama's position on gay marriage is really going to be all that big of an issue. There are so many other things going on that this will probably end up being just a blip...it would explain why Obama felt safe in re-reversing his decision in the first place. He knew it would probably get lost in the shuffle. It will be the argument of the week, but the hubbub will totally die down by election time.
I maintain that this election will be won or lost in June, when the Supreme Court issues it's ruling on Obamacare, either giving Obama his biggest success or his biggest embarrassment. If Supreme Court rules in his favor, no way he loses. If the Supreme Court rules against, no way he gets re-elected.
Similar threads
