Obama On Same Sex Marriages

[aspen]

aspen2,
Do you really want to go down this route?

Verse? Ok so for example does Jesus actually say exclude gays from communion? If so verse please. If not you agree with it right?
Dont play devil's advocate with me or you will no doubt end up offended that you think people are rude to you.

The verses where his teaching condemns it have been given. ie 1 Cor 6-7 and Romans 1.

I didn't know Paul was Jesus.....

All the smoke you are blowing here is not helping your case. The gospels do not record Jesus speaking out against homosexuality. We both know this so give it up.

 

[brightmorningstar]

aspen2,
Neither were Matthew, Mark, Luke or John. Did you think they were? Paul who wrote Romans 1 and 1 Cor 6-7 however preached what he received from the risen Lord (Galatians 1)

Are you now corrected, or still in denial?

 

[Jake]

Aspen,
Is Jesus God or not? Whose words are in the Bible?

1 Corinthians 6:9-10
[sup]9 [/sup]Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men [sup]10 [/sup]nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Romans 1:26-27 - "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."

 

[Foreigner]

Obama has done more than any president in recent history.

-- Oh, I agree that he has done a lot. The problem is, very little of it is good.
I do find it laughable that you call it leadership. You don't set the bar low. You lay it in the dirt.

Not just America but even the rest of the world sees him as a failure.
The term used was 'Global Disappointment':
http://hosted.ap.org...-05-12-02-30-29

I am going to enjoy the next four years under his fine leadership.

- I agree Mr. Obama is likely going to win an additional four years.
It appears God is finally doing unto us has we have done unto Him. He is increasingly turning his back on America.

And I do understand why you support him and will enjoy his governance.
You and he agree on certain issues that are Liberal but certainly not supported by Christ.

LOL - I see you have been unable to provide even one name of a President that has been consistent on his promises. Gee, I wonder why?

- I have not been able to find a President on either side of the aisle that has been LESS consistent on his promises than Obama.
But since YOU made the unfounded accusation, YOU back it up.
I have already backed up my statements with multiple concrete, irrefutable examples.

There are several Presidents to choose from. You are currently down 12 examples to ZERO.
13 if you take into account his promise to be transparent
14 if you take into account his promise never to use Super PAC money
15 if you take into account his promise to have nothing to do with Lobbyists

Good luck.
Oh, and double bonus points if you can find a single solitary President who wracked up a list like this in less than four years.

I didn't know Paul was Jesus.....

All the smoke you are blowing here is not helping your case. The gospels do not record Jesus speaking out against homosexuality. We both know this so give it up.

-- Jesus also didn't speak out against beating your wife or selling your kids into slavery.
Guess by default He gave a thumbs-up to them, too.


.

 

[aspen]

aspen2,
Neither were Matthew, Mark, Luke or John. Did you think they were? Paul who wrote Romans 1 and 1 Cor 6-7 however preached what he received from the risen Lord (Galatians 1)

Are you now corrected, or still in denial?

Mark and Luke and Mathew and John quoted Jesus. I think we are finished here.

The only verses you have mentioned were not quotes from Jesus - they were teachings from Paul. We all know that the only incidents of homosexuality in the ancient world included Masters and their slaves, teachers and their students, public sex acts in Roman bath houses, and the military. There was no equality in homosexual relationships or marriage or reason to consider the idea that love was involved at all. All sex acts outside a love relationship are perverse - modern people call the relationship marriage - a relationship that started out as a claim to property has now become a relationship between equals (BTW). Therefore, it was a perversion - one of many perversions that Paul mentions when he is making a larger point - 'do no be worldly'. There is nothing similar at all about homosexual marriage and homosexual acts in the ancient world - a better comparison would be prison sex and the acts of homosexuality Paul was condemning.

Jesus, himself, said nothing about it that is recorded - you can credit him will all kinds of ideas if you claim that He actually said everything that Paul wrote down - but not even Paul does that. Did Jesus tell us to baptize the dead? Tell slaves to return to their masters? Tell women not to talk in church or teach men? The list goes on and on.

 

[Hollyrock]

http://youtu.be/GWnoUR7nRCM​

 

[aspen]

'redefining marriage' is a Carl Rove created sound bite - it is self serving, takes a short view of history, and is simply inaccurate. Where does the Bible say that Abraham loved Sarah? Fact is, marriage was traditionally defined as a relationship between a man and his property. We have redefined marriage in the United States as a relationship between two equal partners, only recently.

I do happen to believe that homosexual marriage is not sanctioned by God, however, I am not willing to redefine history or short change Paul's larger point in order to support my opinion.

 

[Hollyrock]

'redefining marriage' is a Carl Rove created sound bite - it is self serving, takes a short view of history, and is simply inaccurate. Where does the Bible say that Abraham loved Sarah? Fact is, marriage was traditionally defined as a relationship between a man and his property. We have redefined marriage in the United States as a relationship between two equal partners, only recently.

I do happen to believe that homosexual marriage is not sanctioned by God, however, I am not willing to redefine history or short change Paul's larger point in order to support my opinion.

Hi aspen2, first I want to say that I hope you're feeling better and I have to ask you...do you believe that homosexuality and same sex marriages is okay ?

 

[aspen]

Hi aspen2, first I want to say that I hope you're feeling better and I have to ask you...do you believe that homosexuality and same sex marriages is okay ?

Thanks for asking Holly - I am hanging in there - getting lots of unexpected support from new church friends. I do not believe homosexual marriage should be allowed in church. I do believe it should be allowed outside of church because we live in an open society. My issue with homosexual marriage is that Christians seem to overreact to it and redefine history to build a case against it. In my opinion it is either ok or not okay and there is no need to outlaw it - if God tolerates it, who are we to stop it? Perhaps God is allowing them to condemn themselves and would tell us to 'get behind me Satan' if we tried to interfere with His process and judgment.

 

[Hollyrock]

Thanks for asking Holly - I am hanging in there - getting lots of unexpected support from new church friends. I do not believe homosexual marriage should be allowed in church. I do believe it should be allowed outside of church because we live in an open society. My issue with homosexual marriage is that Christians seem to overreact to it and redefine history to build a case against it. In my opinion it is either ok or not okay and there is no need to outlaw it - if God tolerates it, who are we to stop it? Perhaps God is allowing them to condemn themselves and would tell us to 'get behind me Satan' if we tried to interfere with His process and judgment.

Why is it wrong inside the church but okay outside of the church ?

 

[lawrance]

'redefining marriage' is a Carl Rove created sound bite - it is self serving, takes a short view of history, and is simply inaccurate. Where does the Bible say that Abraham loved Sarah? Fact is, marriage was traditionally defined as a relationship between a man and his property. We have redefined marriage in the United States as a relationship between two equal partners, only recently.

I do happen to believe that homosexual marriage is not sanctioned by God, however, I am not willing to redefine history or short change Paul's larger point in order to support my opinion.

Jesus put it right, as it was in the beginning aspen. the Jew and his property does not count. it's been 2000 years mate and you as a so called christian should know that you can not serve two masters.
God does not tolerate it at all as Jake in #23 showed you.

 

[aspen]

Why is it wrong inside the church but okay outside of the church ?

Because not everyone in the US is Christian. So, IMO churches should not be forced to marry homosexual couples because it goes against Christian doctrine; however Christians do not have a copyright on marriage - all different faith groups and cultures get married in the US - homosexuals should qualify, as well.

 

[Hollyrock]

Because not everyone in the US is Christian. So, IMO churches should not be forced to marry homosexual couples because it goes against Christian doctrine; however Christians do not have a copyright on marriage - all different faith groups and cultures get married in the US - homosexuals should qualify, as well.

But on judgement day it will be too late, so why not tell them now that it is wrong ?

 

[aspen]

Jesus put it right, as it was in the beginning aspen. the Jew and his property does not count. it's been 2000 years mate and you as a so called christian should know that you can not serve two masters.
God does not tolerate it at all as Jake in #23 showed you.

Steps to deciphering MR's post ( a note to self):

1. Read at least 5 times in order to translate his patchwork use of our native language.

2. Look past all insults to my intelligence, personal knowledge of my own churches' doctrines, and his attempts at questioning my Christian faith.

3. Read out loud once more in order to pick up any last clues found in his conversation style of writing.

4. Finally, attempt to understand his fast and loose application of scripture.

How exhausting...

1. Jesus put what right? Marriage? What are you talking about? He put it right since the beginning? What? Marriage in the Garden? Where does it even say Adam and Eve were married?

2. The Jew and his property does not count? Count for what? Are you trying to say that it is irrelevant that Jewish men considered their wives property? ALL ancient peoples considered wives to be property - it was not limited to ancient Hebrew culture. In fact, it wasn't until the last 100 years that couples married for love; before that, marriages were arranged according to the status of the father, the family name, tribal customs, political alliances, wealth, or religious / cultural membership.

3. Furthermore, if my Christianity is in doubt, why can't I not serve two masters? Christianity may be exclusive, but Buddhism is certainly not - I could be a greedy and power hungry Buddhist if I wanted to be, without contradiction. Of course, I am a Christian so I do know that I can only serve one master - but what does that have to do with believing that homosexuals should be able to marry, outside the church? What it boils down to is - you do not like my opinion so I must not be a Christian and therefore I must be serving Satan - lol, ok, MR.

4. I never said that God likes homosexual practices / marriage - I said He tolerates it. If He did not tolerate it, He would strike every homosexual dead on the spot. Jake is not talking about tolerance.

Honestly MR, I cut you a lot of slack - I have serious doubts about your intelligence, your understanding and application of scripture, and I find your practice of the English language to be atrocious; yet, I usually refrain from insulting you or applying ridicule and sarcasm in my responses to your posts because I think God has a reason for the way He made you and the manner in which He has decided to use you - everyone is called to love, but not everyone is a genius. So, my question for you is, why are you so rude towards people you do not understand or agree with? Will you please show others on this board the same charity most of us show you? Thanks.

But on judgement day it will be too late, so why not tell them now that it is wrong ?

They already know. I was raised in SF and lived in Eugene OR for 6 or 7 years, as an adult - there are no places in America with a higher percentage of homosexuals - trust me. Yet, I have never met a homosexual that does not know that the majority of the Christian church teaches the practice of homosexuality to be sinful. So, if they already know, and have made a decision to live openly; why are we badgering them? What is the purpose of imposing doctrine they have rejected?

 

[Hollyrock]

Steps to deciphering MR's post ( a note to self):

1. Read at least 5 times in order to translate his patchwork use of our native language.

2. Look past all insults to my intelligence, personal knowledge of my own churches' doctrines, and his attempts at questioning my Christian faith.

3. Read out loud once more in order to pick up any last clues found in his conversation style of writing.

4. Finally, attempt to understand his fast and loose application of scripture.

How exhausting...

1. Jesus put what right? Marriage? What are you talking about? He put it right since the beginning? What? Marriage in the Garden? Where does it even say Adam and Eve were married?

2. The Jew and his property does not count? Count for what? Are you trying to say that it is irrelevant that Jewish men considered their wives property? ALL ancient peoples considered wives to be property - it was not limited to ancient Hebrew culture. In fact, it wasn't until the last 100 years that couples married for love; before that, marriages were arranged according to the status of the father, the family name, tribal customs, political alliances, wealth, or religious / cultural membership.

3. Furthermore, if my Christianity is in doubt, why can't I not serve two masters? Christianity may be exclusive, but Buddhism is certainly not - I could be a greedy and power hungry Buddhist if I wanted to be, without contradiction. Of course, I am a Christian so I do know that I can only serve one master - but what does that have to do with believing that homosexuals should be able to marry, outside the church? What it boils down to is - you do not like my opinion so I must not be a Christian and therefore I must be serving Satan - lol, ok, MR.

4. I never said that God likes homosexual practices / marriage - I said He tolerates it. If He did not tolerate it, He would strike every homosexual dead on the spot. Jake is not talking about tolerance.

Honestly MR, I cut you a lot of slack - I have serious doubts about your intelligence, your understanding and application of scripture, and I find your practice of the English language to be atrocious; yet, I usually refrain from insulting you or applying ridicule and sarcasm in my responses to your posts because I think God has a reason for the way He made you and the manner in which He has decided to use you - everyone is called to love, but not everyone is a genius. So, my question for you is, why are you so rude towards people you do not understand or agree with? Will you please show others on this board the same charity most of us show you? Thanks.



They already know. I was raised in SF and lived in Eugene OR for 6 or 7 years, as an adult - there are no places in America with a higher percentage of homosexuals - trust me. Yet, I have never met a homosexual that does not know that the majority of the Christian church teaches the practice of homosexuality to be sinful. So, if they already know, and have made a decision to live openly; why are we badgering them? What is the purpose of imposing doctrine they have rejected?

It used to be that they thought it was sinful, but nowadays, they have no such conviction, fear, or regard for what is right...what is right now is whatever the people say is right and they do so at their own peril, a peril that we should warn them about without fail.

 

[aspen]

It used to be that they thought it was sinful, but nowadays, they have no such conviction, fear, or regard for what is right...what is right now is whatever the people say is right and they do so at their own peril, a peril that we should warn them about without fail.

Troubadours were the first to talk about romantic love and they were considered sinful and shocking. Men used to marry for children so they could farm their landlord's fields or if they were not serfs, to carry on their bloodline.

Ancient Greeks and Romans didn't think same sex relationships were sinful - it was common practice. So much so, that Paul included the practice of same sex relationships as 'worldly' along with a whole list of other worldly traits that Christians never remember to mention.

Have you ever tried to get a kid to stop picking his nose and eating it? You could threaten Hell / torture / indefinite incarceration - you could educate them about germs and manners and everything else you can think of and you know what will happen? As soon as that kid thinks he is not being watched, his finger goes straight up his nose. They do so because they choose to do it. Threats and more information only drives the behavior underground. So should we allow people to attack, kill or exclude these children from school for their behavior?

The fact is, we condemn homosexuals for the same reason - we are disgusted by their behavior, which we are not tempted by and want them to suppress their most basic drive so that we can feel more comfortable - of course we dress it up as concern for their souls. Homosexual adults are allowed to make their own choices without being harassed or rejected for what they choose to do in private

 

[Hollyrock]

Troubadours were the first to talk about romantic love and they were considered sinful and shocking. Men used to marry for children so they could farm their landlord's fields or if they were not serfs, to carry on their bloodline.

Ancient Greeks and Romans didn't think same sex relationships were sinful - it was common practice. So much so, that Paul included the practice of same sex relationships as 'worldly' along with a whole list of other worldly traits that Christians never remember to mention.

Have you ever tried to get a kid to stop picking his nose and eating it? You could threaten Hell / torture / indefinite incarceration - you could educate them about germs and manners and everything else you can think of and you know what will happen? As soon as that kid thinks he is not being watched, his finger goes straight up his nose. They do so because they choose to do it. Threats and more information only drives the behavior underground. So should we allow people to attack, kill or exclude these children from school for their behavior?

The fact is, we condemn homosexuals for the same reason - we are disgusted by their behavior, which we are not tempted by and want them to suppress their most basic drive so that we can feel more comfortable - of course we dress it up as concern for their souls. Homosexual adults are allowed to make their own choices without being harassed or rejected for what they choose to do in private

I think I get your point. The way that you have made up your mind is the same way that they have made up theirs, so why bother right ?

 

[aspen]

I think I get your point. The way that you have made up your mind is the same way that they have made up theirs, so why bother right ?

It is not a matter of 'bothering' - it is a matter of respecting their free will. Everyone who has ever existed has the right to refuse redemption. No one can be argued into the Kingdom. Conversely, I believe people can be loved into the Kingdom. Witnessing through relationship building is the most effective way to change someone's mind. Repeating the same old verses and doctrinal statements is the easy way out - it safely pushes people away instead of embracing them. A heart change is what God is looking for - not merely a change in theology.

Also, it is up to God to convince sinners to submit to Him - all we have to do is be there for them

 

[Hollyrock]

It is not a matter of 'bothering' - it is a matter of respecting their free will. Everyone who has ever existed has the right to refuse redemption. No one can be argued into the Kingdom. Conversely, I believe people can be loved into the Kingdom. Witnessing through relationship building is the most effective way to change someone's mind. Repeating the same old verses and doctrinal statements is the easy way out - it safely pushes people away instead of embracing them. A heart change is what God is looking for - not merely a change in theology.

Also, it is up to God to convince sinners to submit to Him - all we have to do is be there for them

aspen2, I understand what you are saying but we just have different convictions about it. I have enjoyed our conversations though. God bless you.

 

[kiwimac]

The problem is this is spiritual blindness. David Cameron is the same.
The UN Declaration of Human Rights, articles 16 & 18 protects the right of the man and woman to marry and found a family and the freedom of religious belief, manifestation and expression. For information, Article 9 of the European Human Rights act also protects marriage as man and woman. These people such as Obama and Cameron think same sex partnerships as mariage is a human right and they still think it and tell everyone even after the human rights courts tell them it isnt.
What use are human rights if the governments dont even recognise them?

Watch out for those who try and sweep the issue under the carpet.

Sure an apple and a pear are both fruit just like an apple and an apple, but an apple and a pear is not the same as an apple and an apple.
Sure a man and a man are both humans, but a man and a woman are different sexes within the human species.

One cannot make two different combinations equal just by pretending they are and sweeping the difference under the carpet.

At least in the US, the case of Loving vs. Virginia enshrined marriage as a human right.