Obama’s pledge to redefine marriage
On Saturday night, President Obama became the second sitting president to deliver an address at the annual dinner of the Human Rights Campaign, one of the leading groups seeking lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender rights (Bill Clinton is the other). In his remarks, Obama promised to end “don’t ask-don’t tell” in the military, took credit for the federal hate-crimes legislation that was stealthly added to a defense bill last week, and pledged to appeal the Defense of Marriage Act.
Then he made this promise:
“You will see a time in which we as a nation finally recognize relationships between two men or two women as just as real and admirable as relationships between a man and a woman.”
In response, Albert Mohler writes this morning:
“Those words represent a moral revolution that goes far beyond what any other president has ever promised or articulated. In the span of a single sentence, President Obama put his administration publicly on the line to press, not only for the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, but for the recognition that same-sex relationships are ‘just as real and admirable as relationships between a man and a woman.’
“It is virtually impossible to imagine a promise more breathtaking in its revolutionary character than this — to normalize same-sex relationships to the extent that they are recognized as being as admirable as heterosexual marriage.
“The attendees at the human rights campaign’s annual dinner heard the President of the United States make that breathtaking pledge. Was the rest of America listening?”














Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top140 Comments to “Obama’s pledge to redefine marriage”
The Bible says there will come a time when good becomes evil and evil good.
Report comment to moderator
NJL, is there no way homosexuals can be denied the contracts of civil unions? I don’t see how they can be, legally, but you’re the attorney. What gets me is how so many want to corrupt the definition of marriage. I watched some of their speakers in DC yesterday and felt such pity for them.
Bisexuals, transexuals, homosexual men, lesbians – all proudly defiant in playing their roles victims. Heartbreaking.
Report comment to moderator
The church of Jesus Christ was born in an age when good was evil and evil was good, nothing new under the sun. The Roman empire, though it did some good, was evil at its core. The church of Jesus Christ, and His kindom will thrive and grow even as the hearts of men grow increasingly evil. MARANATHA!
Report comment to moderator
Man is dead in tresspasses and sin. The dead know not that they are dead.
Report comment to moderator
Imagine you’re a jihadi student in Pakistan or Kuwait or (insert muslim nation here). The local national news puts out this story. You conclude that with Dont Ask Dont Tell being repealed/softened, the US military occupying Iraq or Afghanistan probably has more than a smattering of homosexuals. As a muslim your creed calls on you to fight western vice and corruption, to slay Jews and Christians and sodomites.
If OBama really wants to make headway in the opinion war for the minds of Islamists around the world, he needs to distance himself from the gay agenda entirely.
As a married heterosexual soldier, I’m entitled to on base quarters for my family in the housing area. If a gay man and his constant companion get “married” in a state recognizing it and the Federal govt RECOGNIZES that marriage, all of you–whether you approve it or not– will be providing that gay man and his partner (and any children they “adopt” or have from a prior marriage) with all sorts of benefits. Including presumably an on-base subsidized house in a neighborhood overflowing with young children.
Report comment to moderator
Under our form of government, isn’t it the right of the majority to determine that recognition that same-sex relationships are ‘just as real and admirable as relationships between a man and a woman.’ or not?
Report comment to moderator
Jihadi students are decieved in cultic ways. I don’t think we can win a war by playing to their unreason.
Report comment to moderator
The hate-crimes addition to the defense bill may have been stealthly added, but it was openly and heatedly debated not only for the Dems’ procedural tactics, but on the issue itself. Barney Frank, Tammy, Baldwin, et al, are too clever by half. I think this is one of many bullying moves that will come back to bite the whole party.
Report comment to moderator
Sawgunner, I simply do not see the problem with the scenario you outlined. I could probably look around your base housing and find feckless husbands, alkie wives, child abusers and all other sorts of “base” behavior I’d rather not subsidize. So what? If a gay couple meets the criteria for base housing, they are entitled to it, just like every other qualifying family.
Report comment to moderator
Adios, agreed. And I suspect the image of westerners in our films and music are far more detrimental than what politicians do or don’t do. The muslims I met were at the same time condemnatory of our vices yet at the same time somewhat envious of our freedom to pursue immorality free of fatwas, Virtue Police etc
Report comment to moderator
#8 Nana, it wont bite cuz the MSM won’t expose it.
Report comment to moderator
#9 Thomas, most of the “Army Wives” I know I know thru my wife’s involvemt in the PWOC (Protestant Women of the Chapel) (and yes, there is a CWOC too. A now retired hospital cdr’s wife was CWOC prez).
All the stuff you describe is probably on-going. But with married heterosexuals you have a presumption of exclusive monogamy. No wife would accept as normal her husband’s grabbing tail on the side. Male homosexuals from my review of the literature fully expect as a given that there will be occasional flings outside the marriage. This makes a mockery of that “and forsaking all others” part of hetero marriage vows.
Lesbians in contrast tend to be loyal to their partner even if not “married”.
Report comment to moderator
#9 Thomas, a neighbor across the street divorced her husband. The divorce arose from revelations made by her 14 yr old daughter from a prior marriage. The husband by the way is a (now presumably ex-) army chaplain
Report comment to moderator
Obama isn’t content to stop with civil unions. He wants revolutionary change. Obama will use the will of the few as a sledge hammer and redefine marriage. Since marriage was defined by God, Obama will be usurping divine authority.
The other problem, of course, is that this will discriminate against polygamists, marriage to animals, plants, children, pickup trucks, etc. If anyone can marry anything, then the marriage certificate becomes meaningless.
Report comment to moderator
Sawgunner, I hear you – though I question the choice of “literature” over actual experience in this area. As for monogamy being presumed for heterosexual couples – that’s not what I’ve seen and heard, and the point is, it doesn’t matter. That’s not the qualification for base housing.
You work with gay men and lesbian women already. You just don’t know that about them yet.
Report comment to moderator
Sawgunner, #5. That’s the reason for it. “A fundamental transformation of America”.
“Change we can believe in.”
Report comment to moderator
Nana, we have “civil unions” in New Jersey. I don’t see how that can be denied constitutionally. That is different than redefining what marriage is.
If you take their genetic theory — that they are born that way — then the only conclusion you can come to is that they have defective genes as compared to the overwhelming number of the population. Biologically, the species exists only because of reproduction. They can’t do that. How being genetically defective is an argument for redefining a relatonship between two people of the opposite sex is beyond me. Seems to me some people really don’t accept that they’re different. For some reason, they think that a legal fiction — the redefinition of marriage — will make them “normal” and bring them into the mainstream. It won’t, because normal, heterosexual families have nothing in common with them.
Truth be told, and this has nothing to do with sex really, families don’t spend a lot of time with single people either. Single people lead a completely different life, from the way we buy food — not in large quantities — to the space we need — what single person needs a four bedroom house?
Think about it. This is really about people who can’t accept that they are different, and the rest of us are supposed to lie about it and tell them “it’s okay” to make them happy. No one makes you happy but yourself.
Maybe the real psychological help they need is just in facing reality.
If you take the sin theory — then Roger said it well #4.
Report comment to moderator
Wow, NJLawyer. You think gay families have “nothing in common” with “normal, heterosexual families”?
Oops: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Straight-Families-for-Gay-Marriage/111982360019
Report comment to moderator
“Democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.” Thomas Jefferson. Perhaps this quote is just as true in this case and we can just change it a little: “Marriage will cease to exist when you take away the definition of marriage and make it available to those who would otherwise not qualify.” ItsAboutFreedom
Report comment to moderator
Thanks for confirming that, NJL. Sometimes I wonder if churches are the most in danger of homosexuals redefining marriage, especially with mainline denominations watering down God’s label of abomination and accepting homosexual sin as okay for Christians.
Truth is the psychological help needed and may be why lesbians like Rachel Maddow have a vendetta against “evangelicals.”
Report comment to moderator
What is the current progressive thinking on single military men and women sleeping and showering together? Do they recognize some obvious problems? If so, then why is homosexuality treated differently?
And what is to prevent abuse of the system? Any two people could sign up for married housing and get higher pay meant to support families. In the future, the term ‘family’ could mean just about anything. Women and children will bear the brunt of this ruling.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1, it’s not the same life, no. Single people have things in common with married people, too, but it’s not the same life. A child in a heterosexual family has a mother and a father. That’s different than two fathers or two mothers and assorted donors. That’s just a fact. The relationship between two men or two women is not the same as between a man and a woman. And if you think it is, you are in denial.
Let’s face it. My cat has things in common with the dog next door, but he’s still a cat.
Report comment to moderator
XION – I think progressives think that our military is professional enough to shower in the showers and sleep in their barracks. Conservatives seem to agree: http://www.gallup.com/poll/120764/conservatives-shift-favor-openly-gay-service-members.aspx
As to this canard; “And what is to prevent abuse of the system? Any two people could sign up for married housing and get higher pay meant to support families.”
What’s to prevent a guy and his gal pal from having a sham / open marriage, which they plan to end when their tours are up? (Men and women CAN indeed be platonic friends, despite what Harry and Sally may think.)
Does anyone here analyze their own viewpoints before typing?
Report comment to moderator
Nana, now I understand Rachel Maddow. Never knew that.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer – it’s not identical and doesn’t purport to be. But the lives of gay families and hetero ones are similar enough in all the important ways that they deserve social parity.
Children don’t really care about the “plumbing” of their parents. They care if they are loved, fed, sheltered, clothed, supported, nurtured, and encouraged to grow.
Study after study confirms this. If every child NEEDED a mother and a father, every child would have both.
Report comment to moderator
This statement shows Obama is not a Christian
““You will see a time in which we as a nation finally recognize relationships between two men or two women as just as real and admirable as relationships between a man and a woman.”
Report comment to moderator
My question for those who want to force the Gay life Style on the Military,
What laws do you want added on to the UCMJ that will deal directly with the Christian Chaplains?
How do you want the Military to deal with the Christian Chaplains who reads from Romans or preaches on marriage being between a man and a women? An those in the Gay life Style who will file an objection.
Report comment to moderator
No wife would accept as normal her husband’s grabbing tail on the side. Male homosexuals from my review of the literature fully expect as a given that there will be occasional flings outside the marriage. This makes a mockery of that “and forsaking all others” part of hetero marriage vows.
Some heterosexual spouses fully expect that there will be flings. Some homosexual spouses don’t accept grabbing tail “on the side.” Sawgunner’s argument seems to be that delusions make the vows more real.
Report comment to moderator
#23 Good response Thomas, but you missed my point.
Do progressives support men and women showering and sleeping together in the military? And if not, then why not?
My point is that if liberals view homosexuality as a trait as innate as gender, then why would they condone this and not mixed bathing? Where is the consistency?
Report comment to moderator
Pator Roy 26, good point! Even though I heard him say it, that statement got lost in all his other rhetoric trying to mollify his disappointed supporters.
Report comment to moderator
Marriage is a union between two persons. Many admirable citizens think so, regardless of the Bible. Fortunately, a liberalized definition of marriage doesn’t infringe on the rights and customs of the biblicists. We are now engaged in a great deliberation in our Supreme Court about whether the values and guarantees of the Constitution protect the right of two persons to marry. It’s going to be thrilling to find out where we stand, constitutionally, on this issue.
XION, SAWGUNNER et. al. should be asking themselves what equal protection means, but they aren’t. That’s why we need a bill of rights and a court to remind us occasionally that it has a lot to say about these issues.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas, I suppose children indeed don’t care about the “plumbing” of their parents (in most homes they’ll never see their parents’ body parts, but I think we all understand that that’s a rather trivial part of what makes us men and women), but if you think children don’t “care” whether their parents are men or women, you don’t understand children very much.
No, not all children have a mother and a father; but those who lack one are missing something. (Look, my dad died before I was 17, with two younger siblings still at home. One of my closest friends lost her father several years earlier, and had several years of his illness to cope with before that. Stuff like that affects children!) To say that some children don’t have a mother and father, oh well, is neither kind nor honest. Some children don’t have enough food to eat either, but that doesn’t mean the lack is acceptable, and it definitely doesn’t mean it’s good. We as a society really should care more about our children than to shrug that so many lack sufficient food, and so many more grow up without a father and a mother.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop Moth, why is it a union between only two? I rather think that’s a holdover from the “one of each sex” definition of marriage, and might as well be thrown out too. Also, I notice you say two persons and not two “adults,” so at least you’re kind enough to let five-year-olds in on this. I see that Fido is still left out, though.
In other words, your definition of marriage is rather random after all. A marriage between one man and one woman makes sense. Other definitions are really mere “preferences.”
Report comment to moderator
Maybe I am confused, but I thought that Obama won the presidency.
I think that perhaps, but I may be mistaken here, that the Democrats have a solid majority in congress.
I think we can safely say then that democratic policies, of which civil marriage for homosexuals is one, has a high liklihood of passage.
Elections have real consequences.
Report comment to moderator
musing – many are up for relection nexts year and at this moment the Rep. are look to gain 30 to 40 seats in the house and at lest 5 seats in the Senated. So They can not push these morale views to hard.
Report comment to moderator
Nana 10.12.09 AT 11:47 AM
Pator Roy 26, good point! Even though I heard him say it, that statement got lost in all his other rhetoric trying to mollify his disappointed supporters.
It is over look in order for Obama to be able to call himself a Christian.
Report comment to moderator
Marriage, as Jesus understood it from the very beginning:
Jesus said,
“Haven’t you read… that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and… ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’?”
Jesus continued;
“So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”
These passages are found in Matthew 19:4-6.
___________________________________________
1. Jesus states that those two who seek to marry will be leaving a “father and a mother.”
2. Jesus makes it clear that both the marriage of the parent and the new marriage is between one man and one woman.
3. Marriage is “two” people (not three or twenty) becoming “one.” That is the Christian doctrine of marriage at it’s core.
4. Jesus does not want mere men messing what God has decreed and done.
Does Obama feel inclined to respect or honor the words of Jesus?
Report comment to moderator
The United States of America is sliding into oblivian just as other great nations have done in ages past. Nations become arrogant and prideful when they become a world power. Pride always leads to fall. The church of Jesus Christ must keep this foremost in mind, and preach and teach holiness unto the Lord to its members. The Sodom and Gommorah spirit, along with the spirit of pride, is alive and doing its thing to deceive and destroy our country. Christians, “…keep oneself unspotted from the world.” James 1:27 NKJV A difficult thing to do, but try we must.
Report comment to moderator
#17 – NJLawyer wrote; “Nana, we have “civil unions” in New Jersey. I don’t see how that can be denied constitutionally.”
You don’t? Then you also, of necessity, must say that you don’t see how legal civil unions can be denied constitutionally for polygamists (conesnting adults who seek equal hospital visitation rights and tax benefits) or polyamorists.
NJLawyer continued; “That is different than redefining what marriage is.”
How is it different constitutionally? How is it different fundamentally (beyond just mere definitions of words)?
Report comment to moderator
Thomas wrote; <i?"But the lives of gay families and hetero ones are similar enough in all the important ways that they deserve social parity."
What about the lives of polygamous and polyamorous “faimiles,” Thomas? They are also composed through the decisions of consenting adults. Are they less “important” in your eyes? Don’t you even care about their rights and needs? Why don’t they deserve social parity?
Report comment to moderator
Scroop Moth, why is it a union between only two?
It could be more, and has been more, but we no longer allow polygamy. There are reasonable grounds for prohibiting polygamy. Numbers greater than two introduce a quantum difference in complexity and issues that our family courts are not equipped to deal with. For example, is polygamy a group marriage or multiple simultaneous marriages? In a two-person union, there are few problems in understanding joint and several responsibility.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop Moth wrote; “Numbers greater than two introduce a quantum difference in complexity and issues that our family courts are not equipped to deal with.”
Which is, of course, one of many reasons why I oppose same-sex marriage. One can just as correctly say; “Gender consitiution introduces a quantum difference in complexity and issues that our family courts are not equipped to deal with.”
For example, is same-sex marriage a coupling, a group marriage or multiple simultaneous marriages? All have been advocated.
And who is to say, legally, it must be one and not the other among consenting adults?
Who is Scroop Moth to dogmatically judge for others that in a marriage composed of more that two, there are less problems in understanding joint and several responsibility? One of the biggest arguments polygamists make is that extra wives bring in more people to help with housework and share and simplify parenting duties. And extra spouses can bring in more incomes too, making financies much easier (after all, money is the biggest factor that leads to divorces in America).
Report comment to moderator
pastor roy post 35,
of ocurse there are many elections coming. We can debate the outcome in advance, but neither your nor my crystal ball is infallible.
What is infallible is the presetn makeup of congress and the presidency.
Defense of Marriage was passed under a Republican controlled congress.
It will probably be repealed under a Democraticaly controlled congress and even after 2010 no matter what the outcome, it is unlikely that Republicans will have a veto proof majority to override Obama should Republicans regain control of congress and repass the legislation.
In the short term, I believe the answer is “check-mate”.
Report comment to moderator
President Obama said; “You will see a time in which we as a nation finally recognize relationships between two men or two women as just as real and admirable as relationships between a man and a woman.”
President Obama’s bigotry is blatant. Does he NOT think that relationships between three fully consenting adults is “just as real and admirable” as relationships between a man and a woman? If not, then why not? Give us a moral basis for this discrimination on the part of Obama.
Report comment to moderator
Obama is a blatant discriminator.
Report comment to moderator
musing – the problem is some of the Dem. will not vote to remove the Defense of Marriage for fear of losing their jobs
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark post 39,
we go down this hackneyed red herring many times.
From a civil perspective it is perfectly reasonable to argue for action based on its reasonable feasibility.
Marriage has as a major underpinning, property and income agreements. Indeed marriage may in principle occur even in the case of no sex, which dmeonstrated the property nature of the institution, and often occurs witout procreation (which would seem to undrmine Frank In Spokane’a rgument).
And the property implications are tough enough with only two parties, uvh less more than two.
Report comment to moderator
pastor roy post 46,
maybe, maybe not.
Indeed this is the crystal ball issue.
And perhps more critically, when.
Report comment to moderator
musing – I agree maybe or may be not.
At this moment Reed the head of the Dem. in the Senate is trailing by 10% to both Rep.
Dodd last week was trailing by 20%
So I still have a little faith left
Report comment to moderator
Joel says: What about the lives of polygamous and polyamorous “faimiles,” Thomas? They are also composed through the decisions of consenting adults. Are they less “important” in your eyes? Don’t you even care about their rights and needs? Why don’t they deserve social parity?
1: What about them? They are not similar in any way.
2: Are they less important? No one’s family is less important than any other’s. Certainly an argument can be made that issues such as custody and estate planning would be very complicated for such families, if they do indeed exist outside of weird rural compounds. But that’s a sad straw man, Joel. We’re talking about couples raising kids, not a litter of gerbils. ANd don’t forget:
3: Why don’t they deserve social parity? Because, Joel, such arrangements have proven to be harmful to all who participate in them. Not so for gay families.
Report comment to moderator
Who are you to judge, Musing? Who are you to so blatantly discriminate against those who disagree with you (including polygamist and polyamorist consenting adults)?
The alleged “complexities” raised to ague against polygamist marriages are not proven and proven or not, the same argument can be used against same-sex marriages and redefining marriage in America.
Report comment to moderator
#50 – Thomas wrote; “They are not similar in any way.”
Nonsense. That’s your opinion and you fail to back it up. They ARE similar in that they all constitute relationships that resulted from the decisions of consenting adults. They ARE similar in that they claim to be founded and rooted on “love.” They ARE similar in that they claim to be “families.” They ARE similar in that they often claim to represent legitimate ways to bring up children and train them in how to reprodice in their later lives. They ARE similar in that they involve household tasks and duties and relationships.
Report comment to moderator
#50 – Thomas wrote; “No one’s family is less important than any other’s.”
They sure are if you get what you want and polygamists do NOT.
There is nothing straw about my points or questions. I have seen no legitimate grounds for legally discriminating against polygamists and polyamorists who want to redefine marriage if we are willing to refuse to discriminate agaisnt same-sex advocates who demand to redefine marriage.
We are talking about redefining marriage. Why do homosexualists get to redefine it but polygamists cannot?
Thomas, same-sex arrangements have proven to be harmful to those who participate in them AND to all of society as well.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas, same-sex arrangements have proven to be harmful to those who participate in them AND to all of society as well.
Game over, Joel: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/514477
http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=cache:xxDrZYB2D2YJ:www.aaml.org/tasks/sites/default/assets/File/docs/journal/Journal_vol_19-2-4_Children_of_Same-Sex_Couples.pdf+children+of+same-sex+couples+do+as+well+as+other+children&hl=en&gl=us&sig=AFQjCNEHO8830nX4_Q8dwNlMh_DwYK85rw
http://www.jeramyt.org/gay/gayhealth.html
Report comment to moderator
Game over, Joel: http://www.jeramyt.org/gay/gayhealth.html
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1 writes to me: “it’s not identical and doesn’t purport to be.”
Oh, but it DOES purport to be. If that isn’t what you were purporting, there would be no movement to redefine marriage.
It’s anecdotal, but one of the first reports after Michael Jackson’s death was someone quoting his daughter that she always missed not having a mother. So, stop lying. Children can have their “needs” met in an orphanage, too, but that is no substitute for a real mother and a real father.
The homosexuals think about THEMSELVES as adults and ignore the rights of a child: to have a mother and a father. They can’t face up to the fact that they’re different, so hey, let’s take a kid or two with us down the yellow-brick road. And please don’t tell me every child doesn’t have both a mother and a father. Sure, one or both parents may die, and that’s unfortunate, but it isn’t the norm. That’s a twist of fate. Divorced parents are playing the same game. It’s about their needs, not their children’s. What homosexuals want to do is literally start out with not having both parents. The child is of no consequence, the political agenda, the desire to play “pretend” house is, to be “accepted” as normal is.
If homosexuals were proud as they claim to be, they wouldn’t want to be something they are not, and they wouldn’t want the rest of us to play along with the delusion.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer – is calling someone a liar ok on this blog? I don’t think so. If so, ok, but it’s mighty unChristian of you.
You have a LOT of reading to do if you expect to be taken seriously on this topic. As it stands, your agenda is getting in the way of the facts:
http://www.apa.org/pi/parent.html
I hope that you do better research when working on cases.
Report comment to moderator
pastor roy post 49,
a this point in 2007, Obama was barely registering in the polls.
Report comment to moderator
Joel mark post 51,
when you say:
“Who are you to judge, Musing? Who are you to so blatantly discriminate against those who disagree with you (including polygamist and polyamorist consenting adults)? ”
I merely note that I was in no way judging them. Look carefully, I merely noted that these relationships make property rights very difficutl for the civil system to adjudicate. and since marriage has at its root property rights, this makes these relationships problematic legally.
They should not be outlawed, perhaps, but we literally do not know how to legalizae them at the moment.
We do know how to legalize gay unions because in a number of states we have done so, and it has not resulted in any major legal difficulties. :-0
Report comment to moderator
My “agenda” Thomas is in the Bible. It is not unChristian to state what is in the Bible. And yes, you are lying when you state children don’t care about having both a mother and a father.
And trying to insult me with your last line didn’t work. What it proves is that I hit a nerve and you can’t dispute anything in my posts.
Report comment to moderator
But you can remain a child and continue to want to play pretend all you want.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer, I’ll pray for peace in your soul, which you dearly need.
As for your posts, they’re the blitherings of someone who sees her worldview being challenged and can’t deal with it. There’s no basis for them, and so they can’t be disputed. It’s like trying to argue with someone from “Alice In Wonderland”.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1/NJLwyer,
it is correct to say that world view which appears to disposess gays of marriage is indeed a dying world view. It has effectively ended in New England (RI I think still hangs on but by a thread: you can’t performa marriage but it recognizes a marriage as I understand it) and in Iowa (Iowa …. ? ).
And as this gains momentum, theimplications for other states will beocme very difficult: consider the miscegenation laws of the 60s.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas, take a poll of the Christians here, and I think they’ll agree that homosexual marriage is not a good thing. If you understood Christianity, you would know that Christ said we are to separate from the things of this world. If you want to belong to this world, knock yourself out. I have done my best all my years not to give in to the ways of the world and rather follow what I know to be right. This is why I have never smoked, never taken illegal drugs, don’t drink; I haven’t embezzled, and I haven’t married and divored, and I haven’t done a host of things. Your world is full of well… perversion. I can live without that, too.
Report comment to moderator
NJLaweyer post 63
and if you took a poll of all Christians?
You are aware that some Christian denominations specfically approve of homosexuality and will perform marriages for homosexuals.
Report comment to moderator
And as this gains momentum, the implications for other states will beocme very difficult: consider the miscegenation laws of the 60s.
Musing: False analogy – homosexuality does not equal race.
And the Christian worldview will never die…
Report comment to moderator
NJL – ad hom attacks, such as speculative characterizations of what my world includes and does not include, do little to advance your cause or your case.
It is telling, though, that you define your world by what you have not done rather than by what you have done.
Peace to you.
Musing, I hope you’re right.
Report comment to moderator
You’re on THIS blog, Musing.
And if you’ve read my posts on denominations that have refuted the truth of the Bible and have succumbed and joined the “world” rather than God, you know what I think about them, too. But you don’t have to take my word for it. Read the Bible. Jesus said what happens to them, too.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas, you attacked me, so your righteous indignation is laughable.
Yes, it is telling, and I am proud that I am not a drug addict or a drunkard, that I’m not a thief, that I probably won’t die of lung cancer, that I’ve led a decent life. In the immortal words of Cecil Meares: “I stand ready to be judged by my actions. I hope you can say the same.”
Report comment to moderator
NO —- true Christian denominations DO NOT approve of homosexuality and will NOT perform same sex marriages.
The church denominations you are referring to call themselves Christian, but that doesn’t mean anything when they defy the Bible and what GOD says regarding homosexuality.
There are a lot of counterfeit churches in the world today.
Report comment to moderator
I think the right erred by not bending on civil unions.
The government can create any strange legal contract it wants without redefining marriage. The debate would have been about what special rights should be given to groups of people with certain sexual appetites. But now they are preparing to redefine the most fundamental and important societal unit in human history.
And of course, that was the real agenda all along. The goal is not just equal rights. It is to put deviant sexuality on the same pedestal of legitimacy as traditional families.
Report comment to moderator
Xion, in NJ we first had domestic partnerships, now civil unions, and it is NOT enough. You are right: they want deviance to be considered normal.
Victoria, thank you for the back up!
Report comment to moderator
#42 Joel Mark – you misread the point about numerical complexity. Same sex marriage is still marriage between two persons. It doesn’t introduce a greater magnitutde of numerical complexity. A union of two persons has only one combination, one sub-set. Each member of a pair is reciprocal with respect to the other. This is not true in polygamy, whether gay or straight. You can’t dismiss the fact that gender has nothing to do with this difference between monogamy and polygamy.
The courts have tested the constitutionality of prohibitions against polygamy and have long since found a reasonable basis for them. The arguments against polygamy have nothing to do with gender.
Report comment to moderator
tichycus post 65,
and it doesn’t because?
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer post 67,
of course I am, but I am always amused when people on this blog presume they speak for all Christians.
As we have discussed several times before, evangelical Christians may perhaps be 20% of the ocuntry as a whole (Pew Research study). this is a subset of that.
My statement holds: Christians do not in the main appear to disapprove of homosexuality.
Report comment to moderator
” Same sex marriage is still marriage between two persons.”
There is NO such thing as same sex MARRIAGE because marriage is between a man and a woman. Same sex “marriage” is a legal fiction.
Report comment to moderator
victoria post 69,
when you are saying:
“NO —- true Christian denominations DO NOT approve of homosexuality and will NOT perform same sex marriages.”
you are giving your opinion. And it is not clear to me what gives you the authority to claim this as other than your opinion.
In truth many of these denominations would argue that you are not being the true Christian (and I would argue with them on this point also).
Report comment to moderator
Musing, it is irrelevant what amuses you. What is relevant is God’s Word. God will judge “all” Christians, and since I believe the Bible, I know how it’s going to turn out. There are no special rules for Americans.
Report comment to moderator
xion post 70,
I love your point here:
“I think the right erred by not bending on civil unions. ”
Indeed had the right bent on civil unions in the mid 90s there would be no push for gay marriage now (remember when DOMA was passed
).
The right blew it and is now reaping the cost of this error.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer post 78,
au copntraire, it is critical what amuses me. If I took much of these posting with the seirousness in which they are presented I would cry.
I agree that God’s word is relevant. I believe you are miinterpreting God’s word. I am not alone in this perception, but even if I was I would still hold it.
Report comment to moderator
NJ:awyer post 76,
when you say:
“There is NO such thing as same sex MARRIAGE because marriage is between a man and a woman. Same sex “marriage” is a legal fiction. ”
legaly you are incorrect in:
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Vermont
Maine
Connecticut
Iowa
There are actions in New Jersey and New York which may further impact this.
Again by using this categorical, the falsity of your statement is easily dmeonstrated.
Is there a reason you lead with your chin waiting for a knock out blow???
Report comment to moderator
It is NOT my opinion Musing, it’s a FACT – Biblical churches do not condone homosexuality nor do they perform any sort of marriage between homosexuals.
The denominations which have strayed from the Bible and GOD’s teachings aren’t Christian, they are COUNTERFEIT just as they anti-christ is/will be – He will set himself up as god, and claim it for himself – that too will be COUNTERFEIT
Report comment to moderator
Musing, you can’t knock out NJL. You can refute her spurious assertions with facts, research, careful logic, and all you will see when the dust settles is her (modestly covered) arm rising from the debris, Bible clenched in hand, with passages highlighted that support her retrograde views and passages redacted which do not.
‘Tis the labor of Sisyphus on which you embark, though the boulder is not of actual stone.
Report comment to moderator
#58 – “I merely note that I was in no way judging them.”
Then neither are us Christians judging anyone when we stand for the traditional definition of marriage. You seem to be advocating for a legal change in the definition of marriage to suit the calls of homosexual advocates but REFUSING to legally let polygamists change the definition to suit their understadning. If that is not judging, fine! Then Christians are not judging either. You are not being consistent.
Report comment to moderator
victoria post 82,
well at least the americna Episcopla church and the UCC appear to disagree with you.
for you to claim it as an objectvie fact, you need objectvie data to demonstrate this.
The bible is not generally considered objectvie data for most factual questions.
So without using the Bible, demonstrate ot me objectviely that the Episcopal Church and the UCC arenot valid Christian denominations.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1 post 83,
when you say:
“‘Tis the labor of Sisyphus on which you embark, though the boulder is not of actual stone. ”
at first blush you wuold seem correct, but it still is useful to ensure clarity of NJLawyer’s argument.
Every so often it seems NJLawyer becomes a little enthusiastic on specific issues. Jumping without looking can be very dangerous.
Report comment to moderator
Xion at #70 wrote; “I think the right erred by not bending on civil unions.”
Civil unions for whom? For polygamists? For polyamorists? All those can be consenting adults who claim to be in love. Does the right err to oppose those civil unions too? If not, why not? If you support legal civil unions for homosexuals, why not three homosexuals? And why not four of any combination of considenting adutls in love?
I disagree with you, Xion, on that detail, but I agree with you about the need to retain the definition of marriage as it is. I don’t bend on this issue. I stand, regardless of the abuse I get. I think Jesus would too.
Report comment to moderator
The Bible IS the source for doctrine, Musing.
Christianity is NOT a democracy, and it is NOT American.
You’re close, Thomas, but inaccurate. What you can’t knock out is a deep abiding faith in God and what is right. There is nothing in the Bible which supports homosexual anything. The Bible is not in favor of homosexuality, so there’s no need for me to redact anything. So, mock God all you want, but remember what the Bible says: God will not be mocked. But you’re right. You won’t be knocking me down on this one.
Report comment to moderator
NJLaweyr post 88,
I agree, and so many interpret so differently.
And all of them claim to be right.
Now it is noted many times that all of them can’t be right.
It is possible that all of them can be wrong, however.
And I say that knowing I am a Christian, but that I too may possibly be wrong in my faith.
But if I knew I was right, it would not be faith.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark post 87,
absolutely which is why these relationsships can’t be outlawed.
But until we get some better legal structures it is hard to legalize them as marriages.
I suggest it is presently a practical matter more than anything else.
Report comment to moderator
There are many foolish comments posted at worldmagblog.
Just as people who drink wine have their favorite varieties and vintages, those of us who drop in an visit evangelical Christians at worldmagblog have our different favorite varieties of nonsense.
By the way, my two offers still stand.
#1
Don’t respond to me for 30 days and I will stay away for 6 months. People who preach self-control for others should be able to demonstrate practicing it themselves.
#2
Don’t insult other groups (with the safety valves of Nazis, Communists, and Islamic terrorists) for 30 days and I will avoid insulting Christians for 6 months, with Cheryl D as my duenna.
People who want to be treated with respect should be able to demonstrate the ability to show respect for others for at least a brief period.
Report comment to moderator
random post 91,
I intend to fully respond to your posts every chance I get.
Report comment to moderator
As long as YOU believe the above, we will NOT AGREE on anything regarding the Bible or the sinful practices that those who call themselves christians induldge in…..that Musing is FACTUAL.
The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America has taken another path, they are no longer considered a Biblical denomination – they can call themselves whatever they like, but they are not following the Bible.
Report comment to moderator
There is nothing in the Bible with respect to homosexuality that leaves you doubt that homosexuality is a bad thing, Musing, and you know it. That’s not open to interpretation. If a church chooses to accept homosexuality, it has adopted the views of the world and rejected God’s holy ordinance. That you don’t have conviction is your problem, not mine. That you go along to get along is your business, I know it helps you to fit in with your fellow citizens, but it doesn’t fit with what Christ taught. If the world loves you, you know you aren’t a good Christian. Jesus said so.
Report comment to moderator
Oh dear – I’m afraid I’m going to rob NJL of that which I prayed for her to have, namely, peace.
The Bible is a book, and as such can’t be in favor or disfavor of anything, but such is small nit to pick. If by “in favor of” you mean “indicates God’s support of in writing”, it is likewise not in favor of trimmed beards, shellfish, or fabrics of mixed fibers. It is in favor of selling kids into slavery (if you get a good price), and women marrying a man who rapes them.
Such is the problem with literal Biblical interpretation.
Especially in America, where the Founding Fathers wisely removed any particular Biblical interpretation from our legal process and rights.
Report comment to moderator
There can never be equality between homosexual unions or any de facto union and marriage. Marriage was ordained by God through one man and one woman. Can anyone tell me otherwise? There is no history of marriage other than it began with God creating Man AND Woman. Homosexuals go completely against nature,can’t pro-create therefore would die out if left to themselves, against the Law of God (take a peek into the Word) and Um those parts have a certain counter part for a reason!! They also go against our morals and values. Mr. Obama has pretty much all his views for America messed up. Homosexuals have NO RIGHTS TO THE SAME EQUALITY IN MARRIAGE AS HETEROSEXUAL COUPLES and as long as I’m alive they will not be admired as such. I didn’t make up the Law, the BIG Guy did, I just follow them.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1, I am very much at peace.
Our country was founded on religious freedom, Thomas, and free exercise. You are entitled to your views, such as they are, but I will refer you to Corinthians where Paul outlines who and who will not be part of the Kingdom of God. There’s no doubt where practicing homosexuals fall. And so far, in this country you can’t stop me from believing that.
And Gigi: ” and Um those parts have a certain counter part for a reason!!” — don’t confuse them with the facts. They can’t grasp that simple fact, not at all.
Report comment to moderator
Louder, GIGI, LOUDER!!!
If you yell loud enough, maybe no one will notice that you’ve got the distinction between marriage according to your religion and marriage as an American civil right all pixellated!
Report comment to moderator
“You will see a time in which we as a nation finally recognize relationships…”
Did O say HE accepts homosexual marriages? As a lawyer O is very good at NOT saying something. Doublespeak is second nature to him. He will make it so we as a nation have to accept all marriages–I’m not sure what that will mean–maybe even adult to child. But, as a muslim, can he accept homosexuality.
Report comment to moderator
What amazes me is that homosexuals think it is only Christianity which is against homosexual marriage. What civilization has ever held out homosexuality as a virtue?
Report comment to moderator
And please don’t say the Spartans. They were nothing more than pedophiles.
Report comment to moderator
victoria post 94,
but at root your comment:
“As long as YOU believe the above, we will NOT AGREE on anything regarding the Bible”
has bwwn bwhis or interactions for years.
Actually however, I find your detaile dknowledge o fthe biblical materials very informative and those which are substantiated by reasonable data you and I tend to agree on.
But yes this will always make our discussions interesting.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer post 95,
now when you say:
“There is nothing in the Bible with respect to homosexuality that leaves you doubt that homosexuality is a bad thing,”
there are those, including me, who disagree with you.
It does indeed depend on how you approach the Bible. As the discussion with victoria should make clear, and I have posted many times, I do not believe in a strict inerancy model for the Bible.
Report comment to moderator
Knock yourself out, Musing. Sinners have a tendency to disagree with God and make excuses. It’s par for the course. Keep parsing those words!
There’s NO doubt what Paul said in Corinthians. None.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1 – Marriage and Civil Rights are Not ordained by humans, our rights as humans came from God not Obama, not Clinton, not Washington. Read your history, and maybe your Bible – You seem to have things skewed up. People are the ones who have made the wrong distinctions. Humans made slaves – remember, God didn’t do that. Our founding Fathers would choke to death on where America is today – on what you call Civil rights. Is everything a civil right? I don’t think so – no one is telling them they can’t be homosexual. That would be against their civil right. They do not have a civil right to marriage – that belongs exclusively to one man and one woman. And guess what, I don’t need to yell – God’s Word is bigger than you and me.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer post 105,
I am delighted that just based on my posts you can tell whether I am a sinner or not!
Can you read the bytes and see my actions?
Of course the answer is we are all sinners, but if we go down that path your comment still does not contain any information.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer post 105,
but you are assuming that I accept the authority of Paul!
Last I checked Paul was not Christ?
You can of course see the limitations of your assumption set and how they affect your analysis.
Report comment to moderator
Musing
Your post #103 is so full of misspelled words it makes whatever you say ridiculous. Are you unable to check spelling or use spell-check, but YET you can ramble on non-stop?
Report comment to moderator
Gigi post 106,
actually the bill of rights was created by man.
Report comment to moderator
victoria post 109,
my apologies, let me try again.
victoria post 94,
but at root your comment:
“As long as YOU believe the above, we will NOT AGREE on anything regarding the Bible”
has been basis of our interactions for years.
Actually however, I find your detailed knowledge of the biblical materials very informative and those which are substantiated by reasonable data you and I tend to agree on.
But yes this will always make our discussions interesting.
Report comment to moderator
#93
Musing if you respond to me and the conservative/fundamentalist Christians take up my challenge and stick to it for the required 30 days, I will hold up my end, with no disrespect intended to your intelligence, good humor, and knowledge. I suspect you can’t help it.
Report comment to moderator
in comment #91:
Victoria wrote:
Musing
Your post #103 is so full of misspelled words it makes whatever you say ridiculous. Are you unable to check spelling or use spell-check, but YET you can ramble on non-stop?
On the other hand, Victoria’s inability to respond to Musing’s information and intelligence, and her perhaps desperate attempt to obsess on trivial points, perhaps makes her ridiculous.
For that matter, I have been chastised a couple of times recently by wmb management for criticizing another comment poster instead of sticking to the argument?
Victoria, are you getting similar messages from worldmagblog management?
Worldmagblog management, if Victoria is not getting similar messages for what looks like a similar violation, why not?
Is there a double standard at worldmagblog?
Report comment to moderator
Now, now Random. You know the answer to your own question already.
But it was bold of you to ask it.
Report comment to moderator
The title of this thread is “Obama’s pledge to redefine marriage.”
When Random brings up his silly little “challenge,” (again, I might add), how is that on topic? Not that I’m complaining or anything. But if he’s going to complain, perhaps he shouldn’t be guilty at the same time. Just sayin’.
Victoria, don’t waste your time, please!
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer post 115,
Report comment to moderator
Musing, I don’t really care what you believe. After all, I’m not trying to convert you. I’m thinking that Paul was chosen by Christ — you remember that Damascus gig, right? — and I’m thinking if Jesus had a problem with Paul, he kinda took care of it when he took him up to the seventh heaven. And I’m thinking if Jesus had a problem with Paul after that, he could have done the same. He didn’t. But you can worry about it all you want. It’s a free country.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer post 117,
if you did not care what I believe you presumably wouldn’t have rasied it.
I remember the Damascus gig as reported by Paul about Paul.
If we want to dicuss early church history it is an interesting topic, although there are relatively limited records contemporaneous with the early church.
What we have is records in general written much latter and generally the ones we have were preserved by those who followed Paul’s interpretations.
I choose not to follow Pual’s interpretations, but make no pretense that this is a suitable pat for you.
Report comment to moderator
You’re the one who said he didn’t follow Paul. You raised it.
Report comment to moderator
I’m the one who called it the “Damascus gig” first, Victoria. Musing was just pointint out that it was Paul’s account. Not that Musing has respect for the Word of God. After all, he’s a picker and a chooser.
Report comment to moderator
Not to mention a shucker and a jiver.
Report comment to moderator
As an old guy, 121 & 122 remind me of this old song. Anybody else here old enough to remember this “golden oldie?”
Some call me the Space Cowboy
Yeah
Some call me the Gangster of Love
Some people call me Maurice
Because I speak of the pompitous of love
[Chorus]
‘Cause I’m a picker
I’m a grinner
I’m a lover
And I’m a Sinner
I play my music in the sun
I’m a joker
I’m a smoker
I’m a midnight toker
I get my lovin’ on the run
He’s a picker
He’s a grinner
He’s a lover
He’s a sinner
He plays his music in the sun
I’m a joker
I’m a smoker
I’m a midnight toker
I get my lovin’ on the run
Report comment to moderator
By the way, if Obama doesn’t keep his promises, you will criticize him for that. If he does, boy will you criticize him for that!
Bet you thought I couldn’t get back on topic, didn’t you?
Report comment to moderator
I was hoping.
Report comment to moderator
It’s early for Christmas, but:
“Well there’s picker and chooser and shucker and jiver, joker and smoker and my Aunt Delilah…but say, can you recaaaallll, the most wonderful one of aaaaallll….
Lurleen The Bluenosed Gayphobe!
Had a very fast bold key! And when we talk gay marriage,
She yells and screams “NOT ME!”
She must have flunked her Civics, mixin’ up her church and state
But when it comes to gayfolks, she won’t leave it to the states!
Then one foggy October eve, Obama came to say
“Lurleen with your nose so blue, what’s this got to do with you?”
Then how the gayfolk love him, as they shouted out with glee
“Obama, who really gets it, you’ll go down in histoooooryyyyy!”
Badumpbump!
A
Report comment to moderator
You know the homosexuals know they can’t get anywhere when they do stupid stuff like this.
Report comment to moderator
Random
Just as all the up close killing is breaking us down to murder, death and gore, the homosexual community has imposed its lifestyle in every TV show. The sensation of girl kissing girl was reserved for pornography but is becoming a part of every day TV in the life of Americans.
Report comment to moderator
RANDOM
The homosexual community LEADERS have told us that they are coming for our children. The homosexual agenda is coming true for far too many Americans. There are too many innocent people living the lie of the homosexual lifestyle.
It is also sad that the homosexual leaders are CONTROLLING their own community. They get counselors disbarred if they counsel someone out of being a homosexual, even if the homosexual requests help. The leaders don’t want anyone to know that it is a CHOICE NOT a GENE and that YOU CAN CHANGE your mind.
Report comment to moderator
Don’t get me started on “Zip-A-Dee-Dooh-Dah”, NJL!
Report comment to moderator
There seems to be growing disagreement about the tactics that should be used by activists for the equal rights of bisexuals, transexuals, the transgendered, homosexual men and homosexual women. “What’s in it for us,” one asked, referring to their support of the Democrat Party not fulfillling its promises. Good question. What’s in it for anyone?
Report comment to moderator
The gay threads just aren’t as much fun to read without Anlir, Lon, Boris, Weekenderman, DR, Solon, et. al.
I think I’ll put on some old Saturday Night Live re-runs.
Report comment to moderator
#129
That’s really tired old stuff. I haven’t read the “homosexual agenda coming for our children” stuff at wmb for years. It’s like listening to an “oldies” station way down the FM dial.
Report comment to moderator
#125
The days when I am not here, you are disappointed. I could deconstruct this further, but I am not going there.
Report comment to moderator
#128
I will have to drag a really old one out.
The ultimate success of an oppressive group is one the people they oppress become as wicked–even more wicked, in fact, as the group that oppressed one.
Black people were dragged to America as slaves. Today white children play rap music on boom boxes. Black pimps turn white teenagers out as whores.
Native Americans aka “Indians” were massacred, driven from their ranges, had their children ripped away and put in white schools.
Now Indians sell cigarettes on reservations along with illegal fireworks.
We stole Texas from Mexico. What could be more of a revenge on America than Texas?
Now your children are coming out of the closet dressed queerly. Even “queer” used to be a perfectly decent words, as was “gay.”
Even your language is no longer straight. Well, let me tell you about English spelling. This is a language that was never straight. It couldn’t decide if it was Anglo or Saxon, even in the really, really, really, really old days.
Reminds me of when I was in high school and told a youthful evangelical who tried to convert me that the Bible was not originally written in English. It was news to him.
After that shock, God knows where he is now.
Report comment to moderator
Travis, you are headed for the bad place. First, you parody me; next thing you know your cat is barking and your dog is purring.
Report comment to moderator
What ever happened to the fact that homosexuals (especially men) end up with a life span many years less than heterosexuals; and it is due to lifestyles?
And this is supposed to be, and in many cases, is promoted in our public schools!
If I was a dispensationalist, I would probably conclude that he could be THE anti Christ, & not AN anti Christ
Report comment to moderator
Gnarley # 137
Whatever happened to the fact that all black men have a genetic predisposition to rape white women? Oh yeah. It turned out to be a lie perpetuated by those more interested in oppressing people of color than they were in the truth. The same thing happened to your so-called “fact”.
However, if your sole source of information is from outlets that exist to do no more than to play upon your fears, your stating of your “fact” becomes less surprising.
Report comment to moderator
#88 Joel “Civil unions for whom? For polygamists? For polyamorists? All those can be consenting adults who claim to be in love.”
Yup. And cowboys to their pickup trucks, hunters and retrievers, gardeners to fruits and vegetables, etc. My point is that the government is an institution that specializes in the absurd. It does unimaginably stupid things every day. But redefining marriage has far reaching consequences that will make the word marriage essentially meaningless.
Homosexuality is a behavior. It is a gross habit, like nose-picking, tobacco chewing or public flatulence. If the government wants to give special rights to nose pickers, I would vote against it if given the chance, but if it passes it at least doesn’t affect the definition of family.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawer,
au contrair, you raised Corithians as an argument.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!