Obama declares support for same-sex marriage

  • Thread starter Thread starter Havard
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Mormons think they are Christian.
What does that have to do with whether Obama is a Christian? Oh right. Nothing.

Obama actually was baptized in a Christian denomination known as the United Church of Christ. He and his wife Michelle were also married in and had their two young girls baptized there. The UCC is considered to be among one of the mainline denominations along with others such as the Episcopal, Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, Presbyterian USA,and United Methodist Church.

I hadn’t realized the Catholic Church rejects their baptisms. But thanks for letting us know. :rolleyes:
 
Both of those “ecclesial communities” are not real churches and she is not a valid bishop. She mocks the authentic priesthood of Christ. Most Catholics are protestants anyway who haven’t left the Catholic Church. Why they stick around and be miserable is beyond me.
Maybe fewer would stick around if they weren’t indoctrinated with the belief that they are Catholics by virtue of their Baptisms. And were not put in fear of the possibility of eternal damnation if they left and did not repent. So these things weigh on their minds in the meantime while they are “sticking around”. No one anyway knows another’s heart or when they might repent other than God. Also perhaps if the Catholic Church Herself didn’t give the answer that they are Catholic. Hope that helps.
 
Do you tell your gay friends you think they’re disordered?
The inclination is not ordered toward the good. Do you tell your friends that abuse alcohol that their inclination toward abusing alcohol is just wonderful?
That you equate their sexuality with a disease or a birth defect?
Are all sexual inclinations normal and healthy?
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.
You mean decree of nullity? Why would that be a disgrace?
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.
If you cannot support your argument that just admit it.
 
Popular votes on the issue of gay marriage have gone against the issue in every state that has allowed it to be put to vote.
I’m always amazed when people bring these numbers up that they also don’t understand the numbers voting in US elections are not usually all that astonishing. Less so in primaries. This is an issue driven by passion and the greatest passion regarding it is with those voters on the so called “right” who then turn out to vote. The “left” has other more pertinent matters passionate to them. Things like issues affecting the poor, the sick. You know those things Christ spoke about in Matthew 25 to show love as a way in which to obtain eternal life. One of the principal reasons Obama defeated Hillary Clinton was because the “left” was passionate about the Iraq war being wrong and he opposed it from the start while she voted for it. Peace everyone. Be blest.
 
Knowing many gay men and women who have the very same longing I have to marry someone and share their lives, I find that also to be part of the natural order.
But you are wrong. It is not part of the natural order. The natural order is focused on the children and their rights. The natural order of marriage is the creation and rearing of children, Two people of the same sex can not create children. Same sex marriage is not natural.
 
I hope so. If you look at the number of states that have passed constitutional amendments to prevent traditional marriage from being redefined, the numbers are definitely in our favor.
This demonstrates, however, how the predominance of East Coast Liberal attitudes does indeed influence the press. If you read the news coverage on this story, you get the sense that he’s trying to get in on a rising tide of support for gay “marriage”, while in fact the vote is going the other way. The press, however, tends to treat this issue as though redefining marriage in this radical fashion is inevitable.

Of course, repeatedly telling people that it is normal, that gay unions are happy, gay sex okay, and that marriage is just about romantic love and sex tend to have an impact over time and there is indeed a risk that the popular media will convince people of that, or that they already have done so for large numbers of people in the Western World.
 
The “left” has other more pertinent matters passionate to them. Things like issues affecting the poor, the sick. You know those things Christ spoke about in Matthew 25 to show love as a way in which to obtain eternal life.
Then why does the Left play songs with lyrics that promote casual sex, drugs, and violence instead of true love, like “there’s sex in the air tonight.” These messages are objectifiying women and is creating growing numbers of men who run away from responsible parenthood. Does the Left care enough about the poor and the weak to stop profitting from selling these unsophisticated messages that promote that people should live their lives according to base instincts? Do you realize that these songs are broadcast freely and young children are hearing these messages? Do you see the hypocrisy of how the Left is dragging and holding people down, then remarking how they need financial help? Despite the hypocrisy, it’s quite effective at getting votes. Much of the public won’t open their minds to this because entertainment keeps them entertained, and as long as they’re entertained, they won’t care to discern the truth. Sad, but true. Wake me up when the Left grows the stones to clean up the entertainment media. Until that happens, I can’t respect their false good intentions.

If the Left were to clean up the entertainment media, then we would have an innocent society that wouldn’t vote for same-sex marriage. Maybe that has something to do with it.
 
Follow the Money: One in Six Top Obama Bundlers Identify as Gay
Heading the journalistic adage to “follow the money,” the Washington Post
has found that every one out of six of President Obama’s top fundraising “bundlers” who have hauled in $500,000 or more publicly identify themselves as gay.

The implications are clear: as Obama’s campaign continued to struggle to haul in large donations, his team needed to fire up his fundraising base by announcing this week’s “evolution” on gay marriage. Indeed, as the Washington Post notes, “some liberal gay donors had threatened to withhold contributions over Obama’s stance on gay marriage as well as his administration’s decision to shelve an executive order banning sexual-identity discrimination by federal contractors.”

But Mr. Obama’s flip-flop on same-sex marriage has, for the moment at least, stopped his slippage among big money gay donors. As Obama reelection bundler Jon Cooper conceded, the President’s new position on gay marriage will be a boon for fundraising, particularly for the one in six Obama campaign bundlers who come from the LGBT community:

I think that this statement by the president expressing his personal support for same-sex marriage is going to make my life immeasurably easier raising money from LGBT donors and progressives in general.

So far, the fundraising strategy appears to be working, as a “flood” of donations poured forth from gay and lesbian activists in the wake of Mr. Obama’s switch on gay marriage.

But as the Washington Post reports, other, more seasoned Democratic gay activists have seen through what appears to be a way to gin up lagging fundraising and enthusiasm among Mr. Obama’s base of LGBT supporters:

Richard Socarides, a prominent gay activist who was President Bill Clinton’s top adviser on LGBT issues, said Monday that Obama and his team are “boxed in” on the marriage issue.

“It’s a problem of their own making,” he said. “The president’s ‘evolving strategy’ could maybe work for them as a stopgap, but you can’t be evolving on a significant national policy issue for two years, especially in a presidential election. I don’t think it serves him well. Really, as a political matter, it’s too cute.”

The Daily Mail calls Obama’s change in position a “cynical cash grab that will cost him votes.” And still others have pointed out that those who naively met The President’s announcement with gleeful praise will ultimately be disappointed when they realize that the president’s carefully parsed statement actually changes nothing; it maintains the status quo by allowing states to decide.

In the end, the political maneuver to shore up dwindling big donor support among Mr. Obama’s base may create even more daunting political headaches for a president already lagging 7 points behind his GOP rival in the polls. In 2004, Mr. Obama said, "I’m a Christian. I do believe that tradition and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman.” That means hitting Mitt Romney as a flip-flopper–a Democratic theme once thought viable–will be far more difficult.

Then there is the possible backlash in enthusiasm from African-American Christians who overwhelmingly oppose same-sex marriage.

But in politics, cash reigns king. And with 1 in 6 of Obama’s top fundraisers belonging to the LGBT community, something had to give so that Obama’s big money backers would do the same.

breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/05/13/follow-the-money-one-in-six-top-obama-bundlers-gay
 
The inclination is not ordered toward the good. Do you tell your friends that abuse alcohol that their inclination toward abusing alcohol is just wonderful?

If you cannot support your argument that just admit it.
You’re the forum master? And you snipe like this? My point has been proven. There are two sets of rules here, obviously.

And for your information, my friends( many recovered addicts) get the truth because I’m not ashamed to tell it.
 
Mormons think they are Christian.
But if someone believes that Jesus is the son of God/God…and tries to follow what he has reportedly said–the bits that have been written down…that would make him a Christian, yes?
He may not be Catholic, but still…he is following the person we call Jesus Christ, so he’d be Christian?
 
You’re the forum master? And you snipe like this? My point has been proven. There are two sets of rules here, obviously.

And for your information, my friends( many recovered addicts) get the truth because I’m not ashamed to tell it.
FYI…“forum master,” “forum elder,” etc. are based on how long you’ve been a member of CAF and how many posts you have made. There is no affiliation between senior members of CAF and the moderators of CAF. There are not two sets of rules. Trust me…many of us have been disciplined many times.
 
Most who do are pawns of the homosexualists.
Why would you think that?
If Obama gave an interview and said he supported free health care…and then the next day, his approval rating shot up–the logical conclusion would be that most Americans support free health care–not that they are pawns of some group.

If he says he’s in agreement of gay marriage and votes for him go up right after that, then there is a good chance that means many Americans agree with him.

How is it that they suddenly become “pawns”?
They are voting for something they believe in.

If you yourself vote for a presidential nominee who says she will make abortion illegal…could you then in all logic be accused of being “pawn” of the Catholic church?
 
So why now come out of the closet? He isn’t getting homosexual money, the college kids are not lining up to support him. He needs to distract the voters from his record so he wants a social issue campaign to run on. His calculus has him still holding onto minority voters regardless of their being insulted by well upper class homosexuals claiming discrimination and demanding to be a protected class so he chances little to attract the campus votes.
Perhaps he is coming out of the closet because it is something he truly believes.
Why can that not be an option?
Is it so difficult to believe that someone who has most likely been confronted with racism and bigotry and bias himself would not stand up for another group who experiences it?
 
For the record, we already have marriage equality. There is no such thing as homosexual marriage, nor can there ever be.
I don’t understand why many keep saying this.
Just because there wasn’t homosexual marriage previously, doesn’t mean there can’t be “such thing” now and in the future.
Obviously, the world evolves.

Marriage isn’t necessarily, for many people, a religious ceremony–if that were the case, then most people who get married would not be married.

And it’s not as though marriage wasn’t around before someone formed judeo-christian temples and churches, right?
 
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).
So…
If someone is Catholic and married and they repeatedly have affairs or “fall in love” with another person, that is considered a “disordered” love too, right?
To be in love with someone outside your marriage?

But then…why is it that these people are still “permitted” to stay/be married?

Why are they then not called to a life of celibacy when they realize they have a “disorder” that is equal to a disease/birth defect?
 
Just so I know one when I see one, what exactly, in a real Merriam-Webster kind of definition, is a homosexualist?

Hmmmm…I wonder if this would make me a progressive heterosexual omnisexualist if I believe people are fine the way they are?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top