Obama declares support for same-sex marriage

[The_Rock]

So now we see the entire plan materialize. Biden was the set-up man so that Obama could simultaneously placate the gay lobby and deflect the hit to good old Joe. Why would Joe have anything to apologize for if they are in complete agreement? I just wonder if good old Joe was let in on the plan beforehand. Anyway the gambit failed. It will net Obama $ but alienate independents and Hispanics.

 

[Elizabeth502]

So now we see the entire plan materialize. Biden was the set-up man so that Obama could simultaneously placate the gay lobby and deflect the hit to good old Joe. Why would Joe have anything to apologize for if they are in complete agreement? I just wonder if good old Joe was let in on the plan beforehand. Anyway the gambit failed. It will net Obama $ but alienate independents and Hispanics.

Agreed. TheRock, I don’t know if you watched EWTN’s The World Over yesterday. Gingrich was on, and while he has had a habit of making embarrassing statements, he was moderate, understated, and spot-on in his comments on the program. He accurately saw the phony set-up by Biden, the even phonier “apology,” and the whole orchestration of this in the long-term campaign since before '08 and through to '12.

I completely agree with Gingrich that this “historic” (read, radical) interview of Obama’s, combined with its unbelievably flimsy rationale (the unconvincing argument about “rights,” the inappropriate reference to his daughters, etc.) was a response to the Left’s stranglehold on the Obama campaign, and the unbalanced influence (in terms of numbers, not in terms of $) of the Gay Lobby on the Democratic Party. The Gay Lobby in the U.S. owns the contemporary Democratic Party. (And how that wouldn’t be obvious to anyone who watches lamestream media with any consistency is beyond me.) They have put literally billions of dollars into the effort to erode traditional morality in this country. They have purchased the media, literally.

 

[Suudy]

Yes, you charitably suggested I “shift my incredulity” to those you felt deserved compassion,

Those were not my words. Go back to post #133 and re-read what I wrote. I said:
Why limit your incredulity to unhappiness due to unfulfilled love?
I did not say you should “shift” your incredulity.

Look, the point here is that if we reject the idea that God would “damn so many people to unhappiness” with respect to homosexuality, then we should also reject it with regard to any other condition someone is born with. The idea that people are created with defects that lead to unhappiness does not mean that such a defect should be considered normal or even acceptable. Indeed, we should make efforts to help those overcome such defects, all the while acting in a way that considers their dignity as a person.

I think we should all consider how we will cut our losses in this country as our churches empty. The way separation of church and state is lived in this country will change as time goes on and I want it to stay on the side of my Catholic faith not being impinged.

I don’t know what you mean by this.

I find having same sex weddings more palatable than, as an example, having an Evangelical point of view of Creation forced on my kids in a school. How would we as Catholics deal with that? It cuts both ways.

It’s not an either/or. As Catholics we should strive to mold society in a way that is–at minimum–not contrary to Catholic teaching. Same-sex “marriage” is contrary to Catholic teaching. Coercion is contrary to Catholic teaching. We should oppose both.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Agreed. TheRock, I don’t know if you watched EWTN’s The World Over yesterday. Gingrich was on, and while he has had a habit of making embarrassing statements, he was moderate, understated, and spot-on in his comments on the program. He accurately saw the phony set-up by Biden, the even phonier “apology,” and the whole orchestration of this in the long-term campaign since before '08 and through to '12.

I completely agree with Gingrich that this “historic” (read, radical) interview of Obama’s, combined with its unbelievably flimsy rationale (the unconvincing argument about “rights,” the inappropriate reference to his daughters, etc.) was a response to the Left’s stranglehold on the Obama campaign, and the unbalanced influence (in terms of numbers, not in terms of $) of the Gay Lobby on the Democratic Party. The Gay Lobby in the U.S. owns the contemporary Democratic Party. (And how that wouldn’t be obvious to anyone who watches lamestream media with any consistency is beyond me.) They have put literally billions of dollars into the effort to erode traditional morality in this country. They have purchased the media, literally.

Right on! I agree with your assessment TOTALLY.thumbsup:

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

It’s not an either/or. As Catholics we should strive to mold society in a way that is–at minimum–not contrary to Catholic teaching.

What about Protestantism, which can be quite contrary to Catholic teaching? What shall we do about them?

 

[Suudy]

What about Protestantism, which can be quite contrary to Catholic teaching? What shall we do about them?

I was speaking to coercion. We should definitely oppose coercive education of Protestant values/teachings.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Twitter:

MT @YellinCNN: Obama campaign raised $2million in 24 hrs post same-sex-marriage announce, top Dem tells me.

This is why he probably said it, to boost his left wing base because a lot of them are disenchanted.

Former adviser to President Bill Clinton, Dick Morris said this on Fox news:

DICK MORRIS: But I believe the whole thing is a colossal, huge, gigantic mistake because he is literally saying, “I am the tool of Hollywood and the New York eastern establishment.” For somebody who’s trying to be everyman and rally the 99 percent against the 1 percent and who’s getting clobbered in the polling in the Midwest where they lost massively in 2010 and he’s trailing in a whole bunch of states, like Ohio and Michigan and others. For him to go out there so heavily for gay marriage, that’s one thing. You could take that as a statement of non-discrimination and a statement of inclusivity. But then to publicize that he rakes in a million that night and then that he flies to Hollywood and does an event there—that is absolutely the opposite of the image the president should be projecting. That’s why when Bill Clinton said he wanted a vacation in Martha’s Vineyard, I said get your butt over to the Rockies and go out camping.

freebeacon.com/morris-blasts-obama-campaigns-same-sex-marriage-strategy

 

[Elizabeth502]

This is why he -]probably/-] said it, to boost his left wing base because a lot of them are disenchanted.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Twitter:

MT @YellinCNN: Obama campaign raised $2million in 24 hrs post same-sex-marriage announce, top Dem tells me.

This is why he probably said it, to boost his left wing base because a lot of them are disenchanted.

Former adviser to President Bill Clinton, Dick Morris said this on Fox news:

DICK MORRIS: But I believe the whole thing is a colossal, huge, gigantic mistake because he is literally saying, “I am the tool of Hollywood and the New York eastern establishment.” For somebody who’s trying to be everyman and rally the 99 percent against the 1 percent and who’s getting clobbered in the polling in the Midwest where they lost massively in 2010 and he’s trailing in a whole bunch of states, like Ohio and Michigan and others. For him to go out there so heavily for gay marriage, that’s one thing. You could take that as a statement of non-discrimination and a statement of inclusivity. But then to publicize that he rakes in a million that night and then that he flies to Hollywood and does an event there—that is absolutely the opposite of the image the president should be projecting. That’s why when Bill Clinton said he wanted a vacation in Martha’s Vineyard, I said get your butt over to the Rockies and go out camping.

freebeacon.com/morris-blasts-obama-campaigns-same-sex-marriage-strategy

fascinating! This is getting better and better.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Poll: 51% agree with Obama’s endorsement of gay marriage

More than half of Americans say they approve of President Obama’s stance that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry legally, but 60% say that his shift in position will have no bearing on how they vote in the November election, according to a new USA TODAY/Gallup poll.

Overall, 51% approve of Obama’s new position on same-sex marriage, compared with 45% who disapprove. Nearly 13% say his shift in position will make them more likely to vote for him, while 26% say it will make them less likely

, suggesting that more supporters of likely GOP nominee Mitt Romney feel more strongly about this issue than do base supporters of Obama.

Since Obama announced on Wednesday his shift on the issue in an interview with ABC News’ Robin Roberts, his campaign has highlighted his position on gay rights while charging that Romney would further restrict rights for same-sex couples. Though Obama endorsed gay marriage, he told Roberts that the issue should be a matter for each state to decide on individually.

In remarks at a campaign fundraiser at the home of actor George Clooney on Thursday night, Obama described his shift in position — he previously supported civil unions but opposed gay marriage — as a “logical extension of what America is supposed to be.”

“It grew directly out of this difference in visions,” Obama said of his shift in position. “Are we a country that includes everybody and gives everybody a shot and treats everybody fairly, and is that going to make us stronger? Are we welcoming to immigrants? Are we welcoming to people who aren’t like us? Does that make us stronger? I believe it does. So that’s what’s at stake.”

Romney and other Republicans have largely stayed away from the issue in recent days, and charged that Obama is trying to shift attention away from the more important issue to American voters: the economy. In the poll, those who approve of the president’s position on gay marriage think the economy is getting better, and 62% of those who disapprove think it is getting worse.

Younger respondents and respondents with a higher level of education are more likely to approve of Obama’s position on the issue. On the flipside —whether Democrat or Republican — voters who say religion is important to them and are regular church attendees are more likely to disapprove of Obama’s position.

Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt declined to comment on the findings of the poll. “The president didn’t do this for politics,” LaBolt said. “He did it because it was the right thing to do.”

The Romney campaign did not respond to a request for comment.

The poll was based on telephone interviews conducted on Thursday with a random sample of 1,013 adults living in all 50 states and Washington, D.C. The margin of error is plus or minus 4 percentage points.

usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2012-05-11/USA-TODAYGallup-poll-Obama-gay-marriage/54905424

(my emphases)

Ben LaBolt should be a comedian!

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Poll: 51% agree with Obama’s endorsement of gay marriage

usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2012-05-11/USA-TODAYGallup-poll-Obama-gay-marriage/54905424

(my emphases)

Ben LaBolt should be a comedian!

Those are some mighty strange statistics.

 

[gilliam]

Obama Store Now Offers LGBT Items…

Funny they had all these lined up?

 

[SwizzleStick]

Obama Store Now Offers LGBT Items…

Funny they had all these lined up?

My goodness, what a surprise! How did they do it so quickly?! I am amazed! They must have really scrambled to get these ready after Obama’s evolution!

 

[Allen2Saint]

It’s not an either/or. As Catholics we should strive to mold society in a way that is–at minimum–not contrary to Catholic teaching. Same-sex “marriage” is contrary to Catholic teaching. Coercion is contrary to Catholic teaching. We should oppose both.
*

Yeah. Like in the Gospel of uh…let’s see…when Jesus said exactly that! We need to mold sociey…hmmmm…can’t find it here in my Bible.

Have no idea what the coercion comment is about and calling my gay friends disabled or whatever you’re saying is, dare I say it, less than charitable. Clearly, you have no gay friends. I find them just as capable of the mistakes heterosexuals make and just as capable of love and kindness.

As long as our church grants annullments to people who have been married for 40 years as it did in my family and still struggles to justly handle abuse issues, I think we would be well served by turning our efforts toward cleaning our house.

 

[Suudy]

Yeah. Like in the Gospel of uh…let’s see…when Jesus said exactly that! We need to mold sociey…hmmmm…can’t find it here in my Bible.

You mean like how Jesus discussed the trinity? Or the real presense? Hmmmmm, I can’t find those in my Bible. It doesn’t have to be found in the Bible to be true.

But really, everything about our society is grounded in moral teaching. Laws against murder, theft, coercion, slavery, etc, are based upon some moral underpinning. (I know that there are philosophers who reject the notion of morality having an objective basis, but as Catholics we do not accept that idea.) There are practical aspects, but there is also a moral aspect. And if we can make moral judgments about these items, and impose limits on society, why should it any different with any other moral judgment?

Have no idea what the coercion comment is about …

It was in reference to your concern over having an “Evangelical point of view of Creation forced” on your children.

… and calling my gay friends disabled or whatever you’re saying is, dare I say it, less than charitable.

Did I call them disabled? I said that homosexual acts are disordered, and people with same-sex attraction have a cross to bear, just like anyone with an attraction to any disordered act.

Clearly, you have no gay friends

Clearly, you don’t know anything about me. But my resume isn’t the issue here.

I find them just as capable of the mistakes heterosexuals make and just as capable of love and kindness.

I never said otherwise.

As long as our church grants annullments to people who have been married for 40 years as it did in my family and still struggles to justly handle abuse issues, I think we would be well served by turning our efforts toward cleaning our house.

Again, not an either/or thing. We can’t do both?

 

[Rafael502]

It is a shame that the Republican Party and Mitt Romney have swung so far right. If they were modereate, I would vote Republican this time because of Obama’s support for gay marriage and other things.

But, there simply is no way that I can, in good conscience, vote for Mitt Romney because:

1. He would bend to Republican pressure and invade Iran.
2. He would continue to side against working Americans in positions favorable to big business.
3. The right wing Republican led Congress is too powerful in their anti-student and anti-worker ideology and a Republican President would upset the balance of power.

May God help us (and Iran) if Mitt Romney gets elected.

^this, plus other reasons.

Seriously, I feel that overall our country and our world is better at the hands of Obama than Romney’s.

The only way we can stop gay marriage from legalizing is by voting against it.

One question though, will this country ever become more God abiding again?

 

[Allen2Saint]

You mean like how Jesus discussed the trinity? Or the real presense? Hmmmmm, I can’t find those in my Bible. It doesn’t have to be found in the Bible to be true.

But really, everything about our society is grounded in moral teaching. Laws against murder, theft, coercion, slavery, etc, are based upon some moral underpinning. (I know that there are philosophers who reject the notion of morality having an objective basis, but as Catholics we do not accept that idea.) There are practical aspects, but there is also a moral aspect. And if we can make moral judgments about these items, and impose limits on society, why should it any different with any other moral judgment?

It was in reference to your concern over having an “Evangelical point of view of Creation forced” on your children.

Did I call them disabled? I said that homosexual acts are disordered, and people with same-sex attraction have a cross to bear, just like anyone with an attraction to any disordered act.

Clearly, you don’t know anything about me. But my resume isn’t the issue here.

I never said otherwise.

Again, not an either/or thing. We can’t do both?

Do you tell your gay friends you think they’re disordered? That you equate their sexuality with a disease or a birth defect?

Either or? Yes, and since we are only outraged at what we feel is important, that’s what gets our attention. No outrage for my annulled aunt living in disgrace, for instance. Its the church’s entire teaching as a whole on these things. Like we’re an organic whole.

Clearly these forums do not exist for dissenting opinions to be shared and discussed, but for the community to coalesce around agreed points of view. I didn’t understand that before. I will only post where I am needed from now on.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Imagine That: Obama Favored Legalizing Same-Sex ‘Marriage’ Without Qualification in 1996

newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2012/05/12/imagine-obama-favored-legalizing-same-sex-marriage-without-qualification#ixzz1ufqOU3Rc

 

[Suudy]

Do you tell your gay friends you think they’re disordered? That you equate their sexuality with a disease or a birth defect?

First, I never said people are disordered. I said homosexual acts are disordered. There is a difference.

The friends I have with same-sex attraction admit that their desire is disordered. And they acknowledge their commitment to remain celibate. They are faithful Catholics that accept Church teaching on the matter. They do “equate their sexuality with a disease or a birth defect.” It is something they felt since they were young enough to recognize sexual impulses, and they recognize it as a disorder (note, the same-sex attraction is a disorder, not the person).

Among the people I know that live the gay lifestyle, the topic doesn’t come up. They are aware that I am Catholic, that I adhere to Church teaching, and they leave it at that. While they may disagree, we don’t spend time discussing our sexual desires/acts.

Either or? Yes, and since we are only outraged at what we feel is important, that’s what gets our attention. No outrage for my annulled aunt living in disgrace, for instance. Its the church’s entire teaching as a whole on these things. Like we’re an organic whole.

On things like annulments, if it occurred in a situation that I felt I had the facts, I would be outraged. But the proceedings of annulments are not public record, and I trust the Church to make a responsible judgment.

Clearly these forums do not exist for dissenting opinions to be shared and discussed, but for the community to coalesce around agreed points of view. I didn’t understand that before. I will only post where I am needed from now on.

Not true. There are plenty of posts from those with differing points of view and opinions. But don’t expect people to blithely accept what others write. Opinions will be challenged, especially as they relate to Catholic teaching.

What we have been doing thus far is sharing and discussing opinions. The fact that I disagree with you (and that you disagree with me) does not mean opinions should be quashed.

 

[CMatt25]

There are plenty of posts from those with differing points of view and opinions. But don’t expect people to blithely accept what others write. Opinions will be challenged, especially as they relate to Catholic teaching.

What we have been doing thus far is sharing and discussing opinions. The fact that I disagree with you (and that you disagree with me) does not mean opinions should be quashed.

The opinions of both sides are being discussed I’m going to presume from this.