The Obama endorsement.
jerber160
Posts: 2,607 Member
I hesitate to ask this, but how do y'all feel about Obama's acceptance of gay marriage? Let me start by saying I believe marriage is a sacrament blessed by the church and I think it should be separate from issues involving property and money and other relationships.
0
Replies
-
President Obama has turned the issue into a campaign strategy. Marriage (whether performed in a church or in a courthouse) is not separate from issues involving property and money. Our government/states give "incentives" for men and women to marry and have children. These involve tax breaks, being able to cover each other under insurance plans, beneficiary and next of kin rights, etc. By not allowing people of the same sex these same "benefits", it's a form of discrimination in the eyes of many.0
-
Maybe he has made it a campaign strategy but I really believe his thinking, along with many, many people has evolved. After all, he did over turn dadt.... and I personally think this could cost him the re-election. I wouldn't have a problem if, since marriage is a social contract, penalizing people when the contract is broken. Divorced people can pay back some of the benefits they've received by joint filing of taxes or whatnot. Otherwise, why require a marriage license? It's sad that the institution is broken though.President Obama has turned the issue into a campaign strategy. Marriage (whether performed in a church or in a courthouse) is not separate from issues involving property and money. Our government/states give "incentives" for men and women to marry and have children. These involve tax breaks, being able to cover each other under insurance plans, beneficiary and next of kin rights, etc. By not allowing people of the same sex these same "benefits", it's a form of discrimination in the eyes of many.0 -
The biggest change brought about by gay marriage in Canada, was severing legally the biological bond between parent and child. The words "mother" and "father" were replaced in the law by "legal parent one" and "legal parent two". This is the change no one talks about. And it is so serious.
The other effect was the abolishment of the rights of conscience, in that now you are obliged to accept the homosexual life style. It is taught to your children in the schools. Gay clubs promote homosexual thinking to the young. And Catholic schools are having to fight a losing battle to keep them out.
And gay activists really go after the Church, using every possible "discrimination" accusation they can.
I really admire Americans for not lying down and letting the gay lobby stomp all over them.
Obama is so wrong on so many fronts. I really hope he is defeated and a nice black Baptist becomes the next black president.0 -
[obliged to accept the homosexual life style]
Is it possible to accept the fact that despite living in sin (as in cohabitation without the benefit of marriage-heterosexuals do it too-frequently) gay people can be nurturing, caring, can I say fantastic, exemplary citizens who contribute greatly to the world around them by volunteer work, charity and any other positive value you hold and more importantly that God will be our final arbiter?
[The biggest change brought about by gay marriage in Canada, was severing legally the biological bond between parent and child. The words "mother" and "father" were replaced in the law by "legal parent one" and "legal parent two". This is the change no one talks about. And it is so serious.]
I work for a public school. On each child's contact information, 'parent' is not listed as the person to contact and hasn't been for years. EVERYTHING is stated 'guardian' and this is not due to some mysterious homosexual agenda... It is because the institution of marriage is less-wanted than in the past or not respected by heterosexuals. Kids are being raised by grandparents, aunts and 'others.' So I would seriously question who severed the 'biological bond.'0 -
Re Living in Sin: what I see differently now than I did during the sexual revolution of the 60ies, is that now what is being promoted is a sexual smorgasboard of bisexuality, where you are the gender that you choose to be at the moment. While all sinners are not identified by their sin, me included, there are experiences that hurt young people. When harm is promoted as good, then that becomes a problem.
Re the marriage breakdown that you speak of: I live in a province where only 30% of the population marries, and those have the standard divorce rate. It also has the highest teen suicide rate in the world.
The problem with sin, is that it hurts in a real, today manner. You don't need to wait to go to hell to get punished, because it happens right here, right now.0 -
Not sure where you live, but here contact information states "parent/guardian".I work for a public school. On each child's contact information, 'parent' is not listed as the person to contact and hasn't been for years. EVERYTHING is stated 'guardian' and this is not due to some mysterious homosexual agenda... It is because the institution of marriage is less-wanted than in the past or not respected by heterosexuals. Kids are being raised by grandparents, aunts and 'others.' So I would seriously question who severed the 'biological bond.'0 -
Regarding the Catholic church's position, theologically, male and female complementarity is established in the Genesis story of the creation of the man and woman and then marriage is defined as including “a man and woman leave father and mother and the two become one flesh.” This is everywhere assumed and even restated in the rest of the Bible.
Philosophically, the Church holds that our bodies and the natural orientation of our nature are important to determining the “good” of our nature. It doesn’t take too much thinking to see that the male and female bodies are made to “match” or complement each other. No one would be confused if we talked about the sexual organs “matching” or “complementing” when we compare male and female anatomy. Male bodies don’t match male bodies, the same with females. Marriage is the context in which a man and woman live out the full meaning of their bodily complementarity. This includes having children, raising those children, providing both maternal and paternal influences for those children, etc. Those supporting homosexual “marriage” must ignore the objective meaning of the body and argue that the body has nothing to do with determining what is right or wrong regarding the use of our sexuality. They must say that the justification of the use of our sexuality is entirely determined by what a person “wants” or desires on the inside but not based on the nature of their body. The Church insists that the structure of the body is not unimportant but that our internal desires ought to be harmonized with our bodily existence. Once the connection between the body and sexuality is broken, virtually all traditional sexual mores crumble.
The Church is concerned about civil definitions of marriage inasmuch as it is concerned about the good of human communities. Homosexual marriage confuses the meaning of marriage and places relationships inspired by feelings towards another on the same status of relationships that naturally produce children and family. Both the Church and the state are concerned with the wellbeing of society and this requires that special attention be given to the young. If someone wanted to create a new law that one man could marry five women because they “feel” like living together, both the Church and state should object since such an arrangement is not viewed as in the best interest of society, especially any children who might be raised in such a context. Furthermore, neither the state nor the Church should be in the business of placing a stamp of approval on romantic feelings. The state shouldn’t care less about romance or the lack thereof. The state should be concerned with making sure kids are protected and provided for. Since male/female relationships are the context in which children are conceived, the state has a vested interest in providing a framework that advantages the survival and flourishing of those relationships. The natural parents of a child are those who should care the most for the child and bear the natural responsibility for the child and therefore the state gives recognition and advantages to parents of children. That being said, I understand that some parents don’t care for their kids. Some kids are cared for, let’s say, by foster parents. Others by, let’s say two aunts. We wouldn’t categorize the two aunts as “married,” however, even though they are raising kids. We give the status of marriage to that context that, in virtually every case, children are conceived and where naturally responsibility exists to care for the young.0 -
And I think polling showed that this was the time for Obama to make a statement.
I was listening to an interview with a military chaplain. One of the objections is that chaplains would be required to officiate at weddings even if it compromised their religious beliefs. (The argument being you can't discriminate as a chaplain in the military based on your religious beliefs.)Requiring beliefs who are opposed to gay marriage to perform ceremonies they are opposed to on religious grounds would suck.
Let the government require documented civil unions at the courthouse for everyone. And if religious folks want to get married in their houses of worship, let the houses of worship still perform religious weddings as they see fit without being forced to marry those who they are opposed to allowing to be married.0 -
And I think polling showed that this was the time for Obama to make a statement.
I was listening to an interview with a military chaplain. One of the objections is that chaplains would be required to officiate at weddings even if it compromised their religious beliefs. (The argument being you can't discriminate as a chaplain in the military based on your religious beliefs.)Requiring beliefs who are opposed to gay marriage to perform ceremonies they are opposed to on religious grounds would suck.
Let the government require documented civil unions at the courthouse for everyone. And if religious folks want to get married in their houses of worship, let the houses of worship still perform religious weddings as they see fit without being forced to marry those who they are opposed to allowing to be married.
Mexico has that kind of a system. People will marry on a civil level, then later, have a church wedding. Mexico has a history of persecuting the Catholic Church ever since 1815. Religious congregations were forced to close, seminaries were closed, as were entire dioceses. The last big persecution, the Christero wars took place in the 30ies. The Power and the Glory was written about that period by Graham Greene, and is a pretty good read about that period.0 -
As does Germany.0
-
"Maybe he has made it a campaign strategy but I really believe his thinking, along with many, many people has evolved. After all, he did over turn dadt.... and I personally think this could cost him the re-election. I wouldn't have a problem if, since marriage is a social contract, penalizing people when the contract is broken. Divorced people can pay back some of the benefits they've received by joint filing of taxes or whatnot. Otherwise, why require a marriage license? It's sad that the institution is broken though."
I love the idea of a penalty for couples that divorce!!!Brilliant!! This might make people take getting married more seriously. It's too easy to get divorced - and the kids suffer.0 -
I hope that Obama taking this stand on gay marriage is the worst decision he has ever made for himself!! Maybe this is our ticket to get rid of him! I hope there is still enough conservatives to vote him out!0
-
so many people feel this way and I too think it might cost him the election. I think it's sad t hat a wedge issue can do that! I'm curious beth if you're friends with any gays.. and I mean 'friends..' people who if they died would sadden you and you would attend their funeral even if you had to rearrange your previous plans? please don't feel you must reply.I hope that Obama taking this stand on gay marriage is the worst decision he has ever made for himself!! Maybe this is our ticket to get rid of him! I hope there is still enough conservatives to vote him out!
I've been thinking about this topic because on sunday, I went to a churchI don't usually go to and the sermon got to me. the priest linked the first reading to the OTHER big news story last week-Romney and friends humiliating a kid who was know for being 'different.' He said the Acts reading about the gentiles receiving the Holy Spirit was about jealousy of the Jews, not inclusion of the gentiles and took it as acceptable that everyone does 'things' in their youth...
I found this wrong on many levels-first the choice of such a pointed political endorsement from the pulpit. At the church I usually attend, the priests tend to stick to generalizations-most notedly that it's wrong to use the bible to bludgeon any group of people, since the whole point of the bible is to bring people closer to God.
It's been on my mind all week.0 -
[President Obama has turned the issue into a campaign strategy.]
As i re-read some posts, (cos it's still on my mind) I kinda think Santorum was more responsible for putting this out there....
[Homosexual marriage confuses the meaning of marriage and places relationships inspired by feelings towards another on the same status of relationships that naturally produce children and family. Both the Church and the state are concerned with the wellbeing of society and this requires that special attention be given to the young. If someone wanted to create a new law that one man could marry five women because they “feel” like living together, both the Church and state should object since such an arrangement is not viewed as in the best interest of society, especially any children who might be raised in such a context]
'places relationships 'inspired by feelings towards one another...' 'naturally produce children.' my godparents were childless..does this mean they deserved a lesser status in the eyes of the community (and accompanying tax breaks?)
I don't suppose you know any gay couples who have been together for 30 or 40 years? I do! they're fantastic members of society.. volunteer work, donations to charities... lifting the lives of people they meet UP.. I don't think they deserve a lesser 'status' either.
'one man give women..' I worked with an african gentleman once who had 5 mothers.. He was a wonderful man, loving father (and a pharmacist) in some societies that works. Mitt Romney's grandfather had multiple wives....my political self says i hope this works against him.0 -
[President Obama has turned the issue into a campaign strategy.]
As i re-read some posts, (cos it's still on my mind) I kinda think Santorum was more responsible for putting this out there....
[Homosexual marriage confuses the meaning of marriage and places relationships inspired by feelings towards another on the same status of relationships that naturally produce children and family. Both the Church and the state are concerned with the wellbeing of society and this requires that special attention be given to the young. If someone wanted to create a new law that one man could marry five women because they “feel” like living together, both the Church and state should object since such an arrangement is not viewed as in the best interest of society, especially any children who might be raised in such a context]
'places relationships 'inspired by feelings towards one another...' 'naturally produce children.' my godparents were childless..does this mean they deserved a lesser status in the eyes of the community (and accompanying tax breaks?)
I don't suppose you know any gay couples who have been together for 30 or 40 years? I do! they're fantastic members of society.. volunteer work, donations to charities... lifting the lives of people they meet UP.. I don't think they deserve a lesser 'status' either.
'one man give women..' I worked with an african gentleman once who had 5 mothers.. He was a wonderful man, loving father (and a pharmacist) in some societies that works. Mitt Romney's grandfather had multiple wives....my political self says i hope this works against him.
My experience with polygamous families (Mali) is that they are cesspools of jealousy. Not happy places. The only thing going for them is that women don't end up as single parents in a 3rd world country, because the men are made to face up to their responsibilities towards their offspring and their mothers in places where cash economies don't exist.
As for gay marriage, they only work in a childless society. And that kind of a society has no future. People are contracepting themselves to oblivion. Gender neutral = gender neutral. Why should the DINKs have it all? And that sums up the equality argument. The minute abundant fertility steps into the picture, the whole thing collapses.
And this has nothing to do with people of the same gender sharing domestic arrangements, which is fine in my books. But that's not marriage, because marriage is about abundant procreation and the responsibilities of raising the next generation.
Disfunctional hetrosexual reproduction does not justify gay marriage. It is an illness. People who are ill should be treated kindly.0 -
[President Obama has turned the issue into a campaign strategy.]
As i re-read some posts, (cos it's still on my mind) I kinda think Santorum was more responsible for putting this out there....
[Homosexual marriage confuses the meaning of marriage and places relationships inspired by feelings towards another on the same status of relationships that naturally produce children and family. Both the Church and the state are concerned with the wellbeing of society and this requires that special attention be given to the young. If someone wanted to create a new law that one man could marry five women because they “feel” like living together, both the Church and state should object since such an arrangement is not viewed as in the best interest of society, especially any children who might be raised in such a context]
'places relationships 'inspired by feelings towards one another...' 'naturally produce children.' my godparents were childless..does this mean they deserved a lesser status in the eyes of the community (and accompanying tax breaks?)
I don't suppose you know any gay couples who have been together for 30 or 40 years? I do! they're fantastic members of society.. volunteer work, donations to charities... lifting the lives of people they meet UP.. I don't think they deserve a lesser 'status' either.
'one man give women..' I worked with an african gentleman once who had 5 mothers.. He was a wonderful man, loving father (and a pharmacist) in some societies that works. Mitt Romney's grandfather had multiple wives....my political self says i hope this works against him.
My experience with polygamous families (Mali) is that they are cesspools of jealousy. Not happy places. The only thing going for them is that women don't end up as single parents in a 3rd world country, because the men are made to face up to their responsibilities towards their offspring and their mothers in places where cash economies don't exist.
As for gay marriage, they only work in a childless society. And that kind of a society has no future. People are contracepting themselves to oblivion. Gender neutral = gender neutral. Why should the DINKs have it all? And that sums up the equality argument. The minute abundant fertility steps into the picture, the whole thing collapses.
And this has nothing to do with people of the same gender sharing domestic arrangements, which is fine in my books. But that's not marriage, because marriage is about abundant procreation and the responsibilities of raising the next generation.
Disfunctional hetrosexual reproduction does not justify gay marriage. It is an illness. People who are ill should be treated kindly.
[/quote
Disfunctional hetrosexual reproduction does not justify gay marriage. It is an illness. People who are ill should be treated kindly.]
Who do you believe are the ill ones, the gays or dysfunctional heterosexuals?
If I understand you right, you object gays co-opting the term marriage? I don't really understand your statement..works in childless societies either. "that kind" of society? I'm unclear...0 -
I'm feeling the need to respond to this post although it may be a dead board. I'm often left puzzled why one would look to the government to legitimize or endorse their union with another. A marriage is a union through Christ and the church, it is not a governmental issue. The government wrongly involved themselves by providing financial incentives and benefits to those involved in such a union. The solution for some is to mandate government regulations on the institution which was never about the government to begin with.
Marriage was never intended to be between two persons and the government, period. Through Christ alone.0 -
The government wrongly involved themselves by providing financial incentives and benefits to those involved in such a union. The solution for some is to mandate government regulations on the institution which was never about the government to begin with.
Marriage was never intended to be between two persons and the government, period. Through Christ alone.
AGREED0
This discussion has been closed.