Obama favors same-sex union per "Sermon on Mt" ?

[Starman3000m]

Conservative media watchdog Bob Knight says the national media virtually ignored Democratic presidential frontrunner Senator Barack Obama's recent use of the Sermon on the Mount to justify homosexual civil unions.
Senator Obama (D-Illinois) boldly declared in a campaign speech recently that states should legalize "same-sex unions" for homosexuals. "If people find that controversial then I would just refer them to the Sermon on the Mount," says Obama. "Which I think is, in my mind, for my faith, more central than an obscure passage in Romans."

Complete article at:
OneNewsNow.com - Your News Right Now

 

[Xaquin44]

so?

first, he's dumb for thinking civil unions have anything to do with religion.

second, you are for thinking this is relavent in any way to anything.

 

[PsyOps]

so?

first, he's dumb for thinking civil unions have anything to do with religion.

second, you are for thinking this is relavent in any way to anything.

Well it is kind of relevent in the sense that Obama would use religion to base his policy decisions. I thought that was a no-no under the Constitution.

 

[tommyjones]

Conservative media watchdog Bob Knight says the national media virtually ignored Democratic presidential frontrunner Senator Barack Obama's recent use of the Sermon on the Mount to justify homosexual civil unions.
Senator Obama (D-Illinois) boldly declared in a campaign speech recently that states should legalize "same-sex unions" for homosexuals. "If people find that controversial then I would just refer them to the Sermon on the Mount," says Obama. "Which I think is, in my mind, for my faith, more central than an obscure passage in Romans."

Complete article at:
OneNewsNow.com - Your News Right Now

well he is a christian, and his intended audience (those who might find it controversial) would also most likely be christian.

 

[This_person]

well he is a christian, and his intended audience (those who might find it controversial) would also most likely be christian.

For my money (not speaking for other Christians), there's a big difference between a civil union and marriage. Again, as with so many things, it's a semantics thing, like calling a dog a cat. A civil union is not a marriage. "Render unto Ceasar...." If homosexuals want what they already have available to them (all of the "rights" of marriage are available in other forms), and they can recognize that it's not a marriage, then why not give it to them (other than the obvious questions of "why waste the time when there's no real advantage", "aren't there better things for the state legislatures to do with their time", "how would this translate from state to state", etc.) if it makes them feel better. After all, we waste time on smaller percentages of the population than the 2% or so that are homosexual, so it's really no different than other wastes of time.

 

[Dondi]

Sermon of the Mount? Homosexuality?

I fail to see the connection.

 

[This_person]

Well it is kind of relevent in the sense that Obama would use religion to base his policy decisions. I thought that was a no-no under the Constitution.

I don't think you get their agenda. It's okay for liberals to USE religion, just not okay for conservatives to BELIEVE in religion.

 

[Toxick]

Sermon of the Mount? Homosexuality?

I fail to see the connection.

"Judge not, lest ye be judged" :shrug:



When I read that, my first thought was that Obama said that for no other reason than to shoot the bird at the "religious right". Nothing I've read since has changed my mind. This was is a simple matter of

I, myself, am in favor of gay marriage, but it's not because of anything I've read in the bible - with the single exception, perhaps, of the above quote. It's a totally secular decision. The only reason you would say you got it from the bible would be to start ####.

Or, perhaps, if you're suffering from dementia.

 

[PsyOps]

I don't think you get their agenda. It's okay for liberals to USE religion, just not okay for conservatives to BELIEVE in religion.

Trust me, I get it.

 

[tommyjones]

"Judge not, lest ye be judged" :shrug:



When I read that, my first thought was that Obama said that for no other reason than to shoot the bird at the "religious right". Nothing I've read since has changed my mind. This was is a simple matter of

I, myself, am in favor of gay marriage, but it's not because of anything I've read in the bible - with the single exception, perhaps, of the above quote. It's a totally secular decision. The only reason you would say you got it from the bible would be to start ####.

Or, perhaps, if you're suffering from dementia.

Love your enemy:
a commandment of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount. The entire passage reads: “Ye have heard that it hath been said, ‘Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy.’ But I say unto you, love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; that ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.”

unless i am missing the part where jesus said "expcept for those freaking gays, hate and persecute them for all eternity"

 

[Toxick]

unless i am missing the part where jesus said "expcept for those freaking gays, hate and persecute them for all eternity"

So being gay makes someone my enemy, and they curse me and hate me and spitefully use me?


And I already said I'm in favor of gay marriage, so go pick an argument with someone who disagrees.

 

[tommyjones]

So being gay makes someone my enemy, and they curse me and hate me and spitefully use me?


And I already said I'm in favor of gay marriage, so go pick an argument with someone who disagrees.

i was adding to your point....

obviously if you are supposed to love everyone including your enemies then you should love gay people too

 

[This_person]

i was adding to your point....

obviously if you are supposed to love everyone including your enemies then you should love gay people too

What makes a homosexual a Christian's enemy? It's a sin, we're all sinners, so how is that an enemy (unless you think we're all, including ourselves, enemies)?

And, how is not wanting to redefine a word (marriage) a hateful act?

I don't think anyone's following your "logic".

 

[Toxick]

i was adding to your point....

Then I take back the

obviously if you are supposed to love everyone including your enemies then you should love gay people too

Obviously.

It is at this point you're going to see a lot of "hate the sin, love the sinner" comments, and that you can love gay people as children of God, but sanctioning their behavior is unacceptable and yadda, yadda.



I see it like this: I am a lover of freedom. America is not under Sharia rule (nor any Christian equivalent) and I won't judge what other people do with their genitals, lest I be judged for what I do with mine. If two dudes want the state to OK their playing slap the bologna, then bully for them. It doesn't affect the sanctity of my marriage one iota.... and I was told not to judge.

So I won't.



But, I still think Obama only said that to thumb his nose at right-wing Christians.

 

[tommyjones]

Then I take back the







Obviously.

It is at this point you're going to see a lot of "hate the sin, love the sinner" comments, and that you can love gay people as children of God, but sanctioning their behavior is unacceptable and yadda, yadda.



I see it like this: I am a lover of freedom. America is not under Sharia rule (nor any Christian equivalent) and I won't judge what other people do with their genitals, lest I be judged for what I do with mine. If two dudes want the state to OK their playing slap the bologna, then bully for them. It doesn't affect the sanctity of my marriage one iota.... and I was told not to judge.

So I won't.



But, I still think Obama only said that to thumb his nose at right-wing Christians.

i agree 100%, especially the last part.

 

[tommyjones]

What makes a homosexual a Christian's enemy? It's a sin, we're all sinners, so how is that an enemy (unless you think we're all, including ourselves, enemies)?

And, how is not wanting to redefine a word (marriage) a hateful act?

I don't think anyone's following your "logic".

the people that we hate and the ones that hate us are our enemies. we dont have to actively going to war with them....

 

[PsyOps]

the people that we hate and the ones that hate us are our enemies. we dont have to actively going to war with them....

This is the thinking that misrepresents the point of love. Because we have an enemy doesn't mean we hate them. Jesus commanding us to "love our enemies" doesn't mean "don't defend yourself when your life is threatened". John 3:16-18 expresses this kind of love. God loves us so much that he gives us a option for salvation. But he also loves us enough to let us make the choice. But there is a consequence to rejecting God. I'm sure God gets no joy out of tossing a bunch of non-believers into the pool of fire.

 

[tommyjones]

This is the thinking that misrepresents the point of love. Because we have an enemy doesn't mean we hate them. Jesus commanding us to "love our enemies" doesn't mean "don't defend yourself when your life is threatened". John 3:16-18 expresses this kind of love. God loves us so much that he gives us a option for salvation. But he also loves us enough to let us make the choice. But there is a consequence to rejecting God. I'm sure God gets no joy out of tossing a bunch of non-believers into the pool of fire.

considering another being gay doesn't have any affect on you, i dont know how you would need to "defend yourself" against them.
I think it is you that is misrepresenting Jesus' command to "love", and to not "judge".

 

[Bustem' Down]

Well it is kind of relevent in the sense that Obama would use religion to base his policy decisions. I thought that was a no-no under the Constitution.

That would be impossible, your faith in part defines your character and who you are, and it would be impossible for anyone to make decisions without thier faith coloring it. What is a no no is to try and make law that is specifically faith based, a christian prayer at public school, establishment of a state religion, etc. etc.

He's a christian and he's going to make decisions in office based on that and I have no problem with it. If I were in office, I would make decision based on the fact that I believe there is no suprememe being.

 

[This_person]

the people that we hate and the ones that hate us are our enemies. we dont have to actively going to war with them....

While there are some poor, misguided (IMO) souls out there that hate, my opinion is that a good Christian would not do that (naming Christians because you said you thought they would be the ones against the concept of civil unions).

As Tox said, hate the sin, not the sinner, etc., etc., stuff you already expect and know you'll read. As for me and my house lol, whatever someone does is between them, their conscience, and whatever they believe their final Judge is (or, isn't in some cases).

I'm against redefining the word marriage to fit changing social status of anyone (just like I'm against redefining dog to mean cat), but let the government civilly recognize the union of whomever and whatever they want to recognize.

We daily judge against those who steal, kill, bear false witness, and even dishonor their parents in civil laws (among other crimes). There's a daily mix of religious principles and civil laws. There's also a daily separation of those concepts (I can still buy a burger on Fridays, even during Lent!). Whatever civil law says is insignificant in someone's beliefs. If "Adam and Steve" want a civil union so they don't have to fill out a will and power of attorney, more power to the government for making the paperwork easier (though it's a waste of time). Just don't call that cat a dog.