Obama is for gay marriages

Romans 1:26, 27  For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:  And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Vile and unseemly.  I really don't care what the POTUS says about it.  The Creator of mankind has spoken and He destroyed a city full of sodomites along with the simpletons who thought they could nullify the word abomination by replacing it with their opinion.  They....along with their tolerant opinions...were fried by a Holy God.  So much for anyone's opinion. 

People can choose to sin.  But, they can't choose the punishment. 
 
JrChurch said:
Romans 1:26, 27  For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:  And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Vile and unseemly.  I really don't care what the POTUS says about it.  The Creator of mankind has spoken and He destroyed a city full of sodomites along with the simpletons who thought they could nullify the word abomination by replacing it with their opinion.  They....along with their tolerant opinions...were fried by a Holy God.  So much for anyone's opinion. 

People can choose to sin.  But, they can't choose the punishment.

You think you're just quoting the Bible and not expressing an opinion here? No, it doesn't interpret itself; just like reading anything else, it depends on the reader for understanding. You're giving your interpretation of the Bible and your opinion.  :P

So far as why Sodom was destroyed: Read what Jeremiah, Isaiah and Ezekiel said about it. Hint: They don't seem to agree with you. Sure enough, they do lambaste Sodom and Gomorrah for wickedness, but the wickedness they refer to is lack of empathy, lack of hospitality, failure to care for widows and orphans, cruelty and injustice. They barely even mention sexual sin of any sort. That's why "sodomy" is a misnomer; the "sins of Sodom" are not what you think they are.
 
Izdaari said:
Well, good for him!  8)

But he still doesn't get my vote.

Even apart from theonomy/theocracy, in what sense does a Christian celebrate the encouragement of sinners practicing abomination?

It's one thing to say that the government can decide how to legislate apart from God's Law.  It's another to take joy from a decision to further honor sinful behavior.

Do you not believe that homosexual activity reaps condemnation upon those who practice it? 

If you do, then why do you celebrate incentivizing the condemnation that God is storing up for them?
 
Izdaari said:
You think you're just quoting the Bible and not expressing an opinion here? No, it doesn't interpret itself; just like reading anything else, it depends on the reader for understanding. You're giving your interpretation of the Bible and your opinion.  :P

So far as why Sodom was destroyed: Read what Jeremiah, Isaiah and Ezekiel said about it. Hint: They don't seem to agree with you. Sure enough, they do lambaste Sodom and Gomorrah for wickedness, but the wickedness they refer to is lack of empathy, lack of hospitality, failure to care for widows and orphans, cruelty and injustice. They barely even mention sexual sin of any sort. That's why "sodomy" is a misnomer; the "sins of Sodom" are not what you think they are.

I have read every verse in the Bible multiple times.  And I believe every verse in the Bible.  You are woefully mistaken if you believe that the sin of sodomy is not a sexually deviant behavior.  God destroyed the city because "the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the LORD exceedingly."  They were wicked.  They were sinners.  The Lord destroyed them.  Simple facts, yes?.  God was there and He is the One who destroyed them so His explanation is the record I will believe: 

Genesis 19:4-8  But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.  And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him,  And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.
**SEXUAL SIN**

Genesis 19:13  For we will destroy this place, because the cry of them is waxen great before the face of the LORD; and the LORD hath sent us to destroy it. Genesis 19:24  Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;

Genesis 19:25  And he overthrew those cities, and all the plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon the ground.    For we will destroy this place, because the cry of them is waxen great before the face of the LORD; and the LORD hath sent us to destroy it.

DID YOU NOTICE THE CRY OF THE MEN OF SODOM IN VERSE 5?--- "And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them."  The voices of the men of the city (v.4)-- young men, old men; from every quarter, cried out to do an abominable act against other men. 

And God calls men who do such vile acts.....

1 Kings 14:24  And there were also sodomites in the land: and they did according to all the abominations of the nations which the LORD cast out before the children of Israel.

Since you failed to note the CONTEXT of Ezekiel 16, you completely missed to whom God was speaking: 
**Ezekiel 16:2,3  Son of man, cause Jerusalem to know her abominations,  And say, Thus saith the Lord GOD unto Jerusalem; Thy birth and thy nativity is of the land of Canaan; thy father was an Amorite, and thy mother an Hittite.
**Ezekiel 16:26  Thou hast also committed fornication with the Egyptians thy neighbours, great of flesh; and hast increased thy whoredoms, to provoke me to anger.
**Ezekiel 16:28, 29  Thou hast played the whore also with the Assyrians, because thou wast unsatiable; yea, thou hast played the harlot with them, and yet couldest not be satisfied.  Thou hast moreover multiplied thy fornication in the land of Canaan unto Chaldea; and yet thou wast not satisfied herewith.
**Ezekiel 16:45,46  Thou art thy mother's daughter, that lotheth her husband and her children; and thou art the sister of thy sisters, which lothed their husbands and their children: your mother was an Hittite, and your father an Amorite.  And thine elder sister is Samaria, she and her daughters that dwell at thy left hand: and thy younger sister, that dwelleth at thy right hand, is Sodom and her daughters.
**Ezekiel 16:49  Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. 

Why would you pull verse 49 out of context and claim that the sins being committed by the people of Jerusalem during Ezekiel's time were being committed by the people of Sodom who had already been destroyed?
 
Izdaari said:

Hint: They don't seem to agree with you. Sure enough, they do lambaste Sodom and Gomorrah for wickedness, but the wickedness they refer to is lack of empathy, lack of hospitality, failure to care for widows and orphans, cruelty and injustice. They barely even mention sexual sin of any sort.

Ezekiel 16:49-50 said:
Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty and did an abomination before me. So I removed them, when I saw it. (emphasis added)

Doesn't surprise me that "gay Christian" activists will quote Ezekiel 16:49 but avoid v. 50: it says that the sin of Sodom included an "abomination" - in Hebrew, towebah, the same thing said of men lying with men in Leviticus 18:22.  Ignoring the poor is not a towebah . . .

It's also worth noting that most "gay Christian" advocates I've heard/read also assert that the specific wickedness of Sodom in the story of Lot was gang rape, rather than homosexuality.  Of course, Ezekiel doesn't say that - thus anyone who attempts to cite both explanations is contradicting himself.  This isn't uncommon - the usual modus operandi of those who claim that the Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality, is to fling a lot of poo at random and see what sticks.
 
[quote author=4everfsu]Re: Obama is for gay marriages[/quote]

Or maybe he's just not in favor of laws *preventing* gay marriages?
Or maybe he's not in favor of government determining who can and who cannot get married?

Conservatives used to say that government shouldn't legislate morality, and that government shouldn't be in the bedroom.
Conservatives also used to say that their religious liberties were violated when government wouldn't recognize their church-sanctioned marriages.  Like it or not, some gays & lesbians attend church that perform weddings for them.  Should government refuse to recognize those church-sanctioned marriages?

Yes, conservatives used to say all these things.
Funny how conservatives don't say such things when the topic is gay marriage.  ::)
 
redgreen5 said:
[quote author=4everfsu]Re: Obama is for gay marriages

Or maybe he's just not in favor of laws *preventing* gay marriages?
Or maybe he's not in favor of government determining who can and who cannot get married?

Conservatives used to say that government shouldn't legislate morality, and that government shouldn't be in the bedroom.
Conservatives also used to say that their religious liberties were violated when government wouldn't recognize their church-sanctioned marriages.  Like it or not, some gays & lesbians attend church that perform weddings for them.  Should government refuse to recognize those church-sanctioned marriages?

Yes, conservatives used to say all these things.
Funny how conservatives don't say such things when the topic is gay marriage.  ::)
[/quote]

Yes they should refuse.....

It clear you did not listen to all Obama had to say. Did you just listen to the highlights at the huddington post? I happened to listen to the entire interview on ABC news.

Obama went on to say that states have the right to reject gay marriage. So.... that destroys you agrument that he isn't in favor of government interference.

We have come to expect such inadequate statement from you redgreen5. If you would expand your source for information beyond liberal news sources..... maybe you wouldn't end up with so much "pie" on you face. ;)
 
christundivided said:
redgreen5 said:
[quote author=4everfsu]Re: Obama is for gay marriages

Or maybe he's just not in favor of laws *preventing* gay marriages?
Or maybe he's not in favor of government determining who can and who cannot get married?

Conservatives used to say that government shouldn't legislate morality, and that government shouldn't be in the bedroom.
Conservatives also used to say that their religious liberties were violated when government wouldn't recognize their church-sanctioned marriages.  Like it or not, some gays & lesbians attend church that perform weddings for them.  Should government refuse to recognize those church-sanctioned marriages?

Yes, conservatives used to say all these things.
Funny how conservatives don't say such things when the topic is gay marriage.  ::)

Yes they should refuse.....[/quote]
Restating your wishful thinking is not an argument.

It clear you did not listen to all Obama had to say.

It's clear that you're both (a) wrong about that as well as (b) stupid.

Obama went on to say that states have the right to reject gay marriage. So.... that destroys you agrument that he isn't in favor of government interference.

It doesn't destroy anything, moron.  As usual, you don't know what you're talking about. 

Obama was speaking as the senior Executive of the FEDERAL government.  He's talking about FEDERAL involvement, which is why he said that his Justice Dept wouldn't defend DOMA. 

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, I-- you know, my Justice Department has already-- said that it is not gonna defend-- the Defense Against Marriage Act. That we consider that a violation of equal protection clause. And I agree with them on that. You know? I helped to prompt that-- that move on the part of the Justice Department.

Marriage is defined under state laws.  It always has been. Obama is a constitutional scholar; he's aware of that point, and how federal/state separation of powers works in this issue.

So there's nothing inconsistent in recognizing that the states are deciding their own marriage laws (as they always have done), while also saying the federal govt won't discriminate against gay marriages.

Duh.

We have come to expect blah blah blah

Just another case of you shooting off your mouth too early, and then having to eat crow.
 
Redgreen, do your Man a favor and quote one of his teleprompted speeches.  The original words of the scholar-of-the-flawed-Constitution are painful to read.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, I-- you know, my Justice Department has already-- said that it is not gonna defend-- the Defense Against Marriage Act. That we consider that a violation of equal protection clause. And I agree with them on that. You know? I helped to prompt that-- that move on the part of the Justice Department.
 
Bou said:
Izdaari said:
Well, good for him!  8)

But he still doesn't get my vote.

Even apart from theonomy/theocracy, in what sense does a Christian celebrate the encouragement of sinners practicing abomination?

It's one thing to say that the government can decide how to legislate apart from God's Law.  It's another to take joy from a decision to further honor sinful behavior.

Who said anything about celebrating it? I just think it's a matter of equal protection under the law, as Obama said. I'm not much of an Obama fan, but when he gets something right, I'll give him credit.

Do you not believe that homosexual activity reaps condemnation upon those who practice it? 

If you do, then why do you celebrate incentivizing the condemnation that God is storing up for them?

No, I really don't. I don't think it's a choice or a 'lifestyle', but hardwired biology. And all the 'clobber' passages have major problems, either with cultural and historical context or with translation.
 
Izdaari said:
No, I really don't. I don't think it's a choice or a 'lifestyle', but hardwired biology. And all the 'clobber' passages have major problems, either with cultural and historical context or with translation.

I didn't say anything about the nurture/nature debate.

So, as a Christian, you believe homosexual activity is not sinful?
 
Okay, I'll bite.

redgreen5 said:
Conservatives used to say that government shouldn't legislate morality, and that government shouldn't be in the bedroom.
Conservatives also used to say that their religious liberties were violated when government wouldn't recognize their church-sanctioned marriages.  Like it or not, some gays & lesbians attend church that perform weddings for them.  Should government refuse to recognize those church-sanctioned marriages?

The above is a massive red herring.

First, saying government is legislating morality is a fine example of truthiness.  Society is not legislating morality.  It is defining the limits of what it chooses to recognize as a marriage under law (as society has ALWAYS done).  Society forbidding homosexual activity would be an example of legislating morality.   

Second, the government is not in the bedroom with these laws.  Homosexuals can still engage in homosexual activity in their bedroom.  Virtually no one is arguing for a return to pre-Lawrence v. Texas.  Homosexuals pretty much have free reign over what they can do to each other in the bedroom.  In other words, the government is not keeping people from loving whoever they want to.

Society is free to choose defining marriage in the way that they want.  There is no inherent "right" to marriage for homosexuals.

To create a new right for homosexuals to marry would be a historically unprecedented, unparalleled act.  Even Greece, much more steeped in homosexual activity than ours, never found any right such as that.

If there is some kind of existing right, where does that come from?  Natural law?  Natural law has been jettisoned many, many moons ago. 

If you set aside the religious argument for using religion to define marriage, marriage then becomes what we say it is.  The only way to say different is to appeal to some kind of metaphysical reality.
 
Izdaari said:
No, I really don't. I don't think it's a choice or a 'lifestyle', but hardwired biology. And all the 'clobber' passages have major problems, either with cultural and historical context or with translation.

Your view of the word of God explains a lot about your beliefs. 

Matthew 22:29  Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.

John 5:39  Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

Romans 16:26  But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:

2 Timothy 3:15  And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

Psalms 119:130  The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple.

Psalms 119:140  Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it.

John 1:14  And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Revelation 19:13  And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

Proverbs 30:6  Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

Mark 7:13  Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

John 12:48  He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.

1 Peter 1:25  But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

Your view of people being biologically "hard-wired" is not found in Scripture.  ALL have sinned.  No one was hard-wired to be a fornicator, idolator, thief, effeminate or an adulterer for their entire life.  God just calls it unrighteousness:

  1 Corinthians 6:9-11  Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,  Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.  And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
 
Bou said:
Izdaari said:
No, I really don't. I don't think it's a choice or a 'lifestyle', but hardwired biology. And all the 'clobber' passages have major problems, either with cultural and historical context or with translation.

I didn't say anything about the nurture/nature debate.

So, as a Christian, you believe homosexual activity is not sinful?

I don't know that it is or it isn't. I just know I can't find Scripture that clearly says it is, is properly translated, and isn't referring to some specific idolatrous or abusive situation, such as patronizing pagan temple prostitutes or sex slaves, rather than to same sex activity in general.

My intuitive feeling is that monogamous heterosexual marriage is the ideal, and is God's best for us... if we can pull it off. And if we can't? We are in that sense "missing the mark". But we aren't all capable of it. Some of us aren't attracted to the opposite sex, and can't change that.

My problem is different: I can't seem to form permanent relationships with anybody. I was married once, but it didn't last, and I've never found anyone else that was both willing and suitable to try again. Possibly my standards are too high, and I'm too used to being single and having everything my own way. And possibly I have psychological issues, and would benefit from counseling or therapy... that I can't afford. But for whatever reason, I too am "missing the mark", and thus have empathy for others in similar situations.
 
JrChurch said:
Izdaari said:
No, I really don't. I don't think it's a choice or a 'lifestyle', but hardwired biology. And all the 'clobber' passages have major problems, either with cultural and historical context or with translation.

Your view of the word of God explains a lot about your beliefs.

I should hope so! If our view of the word of God doesn't closely relate to our beliefs, we aren't taking Scripture seriously enough.

I do understand that I'm way out of step with the majority here, being an Episcopalian (formerly AoG) and Libertarian Party member in a flock of fundamental Baptists and socially conservative Republicans. I'm here mainly because I came to know and like a lot of y'all over on the old FFF.

I'd like to comment on the passages you've chosen, and on Bou's political argument, but it'll take some time, which I don't have right now. I'll try to come back to it.
 
Gringo said:
For several hundred years in this country, we enslaved people for our own profit. And if we wanted to, we could point to certain verses in the Bible to back us up. But there "came a day" in the 19th century when that all changed.  We realized that regardless of what Paul said, it wasn't right to enslave people. And we stopped it.

For several hundred years in this country, we did not allow women to vote or to have the same status as men. And if we wanted to, we could point to certain verses in the Bible to back us up. But there came a day in the 20th century when that all changed. We realized that regardless of what Paul said, it wasn't right to treat women differently than men. And we stopped it.

For thousands of years, in many cultures, gays have been looked on as equal with murderers and drug dealers. And if they wanted to, they could point to several verses in the Bible to back them up. But there is coming a day in the 21st century when that will change. It IS changing little by little. As we become more and more entrenched in the information age and more and more data are available to us more and more people are beginning to realize that regardless of what Paul said, it isn't right to treat  gay people the way they have been treated. And one day, hopefully soon, we'll stop it.

...

And I think what is happening today is that gays are beginning to rise up. And there are more and more "white people" right alongside them. Both the gay people AND the people alongside them, Christundivided, know that gay people have the ability to love and that it's not about money or sex.

It's about expressing THEIR love for their loved one JUST LIKE you do for yours, regardless of what Paul said.

Yeah...I'm pretty much convinced you have no idea what Paul was actually saying.
 
FWIW, I think Gringo has it nailed on how gays are thinking about the issue. It matches what I hear from my gay friends. They are thinking like Rosa Parks. And as a matter of politics and justice, if not of theology, I think they're right.
 
Bwahahahaha!

This oughta send a tingle up Chrissy Matthews' other leg.  And I think I've found a disparaging nickname worthy of displacing "Teleprompter in Chief."

First+Gay+President.jpg
 
I hope they mean that in a "Clinton was the first black president" kind of way. But I have seen unsubstantiated allegations going around the net that Obama is a member of a gay bath house in Chicago. I'm going to assume that's wingnutter squid ink until I see proof.
 
Back
Top