Gay Marriage Thorny Issue for Obama

[Sam]

Originally Posted by jfrog

...In fact, our system of government was specifically set up in order to protect against the "Tyranny of the Majority" (Primary Source: The Federalist Paper #10). That is one of the inherent virtues of a Republic over a direct democracy, it helps protect minorities from the will of the majority. ...

Someone said, "Democracy is like two wolves and one lamb voting on what they should have for lunch."

[n david]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

No, they haven't put him through the ringer like they have Perry, Gingrich, Bachmann, etc., and of course, that is my personal view. But, they are fixin' too! And you are fixin' to find out what the "ringer" really is. Just sayin'...

We'll have to agree to disagree on comparisons to the other candidates. But Romney has been vetted more than Obama was, you would have to agree on that.

[n david]

Originally Posted by RevDWW

Why no MSM coverage of Obama's college days?
Why no MSM coverage of Obama's book he wrote?
Why no MSM coverage of Obama's alleged drug use?

And the list could go on!

Oh I agree about Obama. He hasn't been vetted at all. I was talking about Romney.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by n david

Oh I agree about Obama. He hasn't been vetted at all. I was talking about Romney.

Barack Obama has been the darling of the media. They have all but actively campaigned for him. Other than for Fox(or Faux as some call it) you will only hear good about Obama and bad about conservatives.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by n david

We'll have to agree to disagree on comparisons to the other candidates. But Romney has been vetted more than Obama was, you would have to agree on that.

This is what I do agree with and my issue with Romney - "But no one has gotten through Romney’s media game to scuff him up or make him answer for his own record."

[BeenThinkin]

I am really surprised at some of the responses I'm seeing about the subject listed on this post.

First let me say, I do not hate homosexuals! Nor do I hate adulterers, fornicators, liars, thieves, etc! I do hate their sin, just as God hates it, but God loved each of the above enough to give His Son for them.

There are a couple of facts that we cannot deny. As things are, either Obama or Romney will be our next president. One has stated "he is for and upholds gay marriage" after a time of evolving. The other one says he is against it. Now for me to believe Obama, doesn't require much effort. For me to believe what Romney said should not take any more effort to believe than what Obama said. He said it! Romney said he was against gay marriages. And then from there we start the "but" "but" "but" game!

What did Obama say?

What did Romney say?

And now you can say it doesn't make any difference, I believe thus and thus and thus. Again, what did they say? Why can't you believe Romney? It seems some are so quick to believe Obama, but in all their wisdom they "know" that Romney doesn't mean what he said. Does Obama believe what he said? If you believe that how can you support him and vote for him? Obama seems to be admired for his "evolving", but if Romney changes on anything he is a "flip flopper!" Some folks are so inconsistent!

In my opinion, (and don't forget that is what it is) ANYONE THAT WOULD HOLD UP FOR A MAN THAT SAYS HE IS FOR GAY MARRIAGE SHOULD BOW THEIR HEAD IN SHAME! Is it Godly to support, promote and uphold this sin? Does the Bible give us any thing at all "in favor of" homosexuality? Can you defend it scripturally? I can defend man and woman, but no where can I defend man and man or woman and woman!

Does the Bible say anything against homosexuality? Well I'm not as well learned as some on this forum but somethings don't take a college education to understand.

What does this mean? Ro 1:27 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.

Now I don't know about you but I'm not going to uphold and support the election of an individual who publicly proclaims he is for gay marriages. And you might say that you are not doing that, but when you spend all of your energies tearing down the opponent of the afore mentioned you are supporting the afore mentioned.

Someone please tell me how an Apostolic can support and vote for Obama after he has removed any doubt that he upholds and supports one of the most egregious sins of our day. It goes against scripture, against nature, against the creation act, (male - female) (husband and wife) (Adam and Eve) and cannot be supported by scripture! It was not "Adam and Steve" it was "Adam and Eve!" And there is no where in scripture that I can find that this has changed!

I am amazed!

Been Thinkin

[canam]

Now we will see if JD still votes for him,then we will know if he is a lost cause

[deacon blues]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Maybe we overstepped our bounds on polygamy. Not that I would practice it or have any desire to practice it or to see it practiced but I find no compelling reason to avoiding having legal precedents established for groups that enter in private contracts and relationships outside the law. These relationships though outside the law are not illegal. One man can live with as many women as he wants and have sex with as many of those as he wants. That's not illegal. He can expel any of those women for cheating on him and they can leave him if he cheats on them with someone outside that group. There's noting illegal about 2 gays living together and having sex (well possibly sodomy laws but those are pretty much unenforced anyways).

The point is none of these activities are illegal. If none of these activities are illegal why does it matter if we give such people legal recourse for these private relationships. I mean really the only difference between a legal marriage and 2 gay people living together without being married is that the married people have actual legal recourse to address certain grievances they have with the person they are living with.

The point is that by banning gay marriage we aren't banning homosexual activities and that's what christians act like the ban does. We are simply banning any unique legal recourse they might have if that unique relationship goes bad. It's not the same kind of relationship that 2 male roommates have and I can't find any reason that it should be treated the same as the relationship 2 male roommates have. What about you?

No, go ahead, by all means make the relationship with all the same legal benefits, I don't care so much about that---just don't give it the marriage designation. I think it's a dangerous precedent. Civil union, life partnership, big hairy deal, I don't care what to call it. Just not "marriage". How would Obama feel if we decided to call everyone not caucasian "African American". You could argue that Latinos and Asians and Native Americans aren't African Americans but that's not fair, right? Why should only ppl with African American heritage be called that? What if some ppl wanted to be considered AA? Call it something but don't call it what it isn't, marriage.

[Sam]

Hope you can see this attachment.

Some times I can see my attachments and some times I can't and don't know why that is.

[Sam]

maybe you can see this attachment