Updated 11:59 pm.EST, Fri November 20, 2009

Society|Mon, Oct. 12 2009 05:26 PM EDT

Has Obama Ushered in a New Era for LGBT Rights?

By Nathan Black|Christian Post Reporter

President Obama's speech this past weekend made it "abundantly clear" that America is looking at "a new era for civil rights for LGBT people," said one gay rights advocate.

  • gay rights
    (Photo: AP / Jacquelyn Martin)
    Gay rights advocates fill the west lawn of the Capitol during a rally in Washington, Sunday, Oct. 11, 2009. The National Equality March took place one day after President Obama vowed to fight with LGBT people.

The address on Saturday at an event hosted by the nation's largest lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender organization "drew a clear line in the sand for the world to see: this administration believes in and will work with the LGBT community and our allies to achieve full equality under the law for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans," said Mitchell Gold, founder of nonreligious organization Faith in America.

"President Obama’s presence and words represented his recognition that LGBT people are a normal part of our diverse society."

It was an evening of standing ovations and loud applause as thousands of gay rights supporters heard Obama say he is on their side. He called LGBT people his friends and assured them that despite some of the pressing issues, including the economy, on his desk he remains "unwavering" in his commitment to them.

"We cannot and we will not put aside issues of basic equality," Obama said at the Human Rights Campaign's 13th Annual National Dinner. "This fight continues now. And I'm here with a simple message: I'm here with you in that fight."

Many are hailing Obama as the first U.S. president to express such strong commitment to the LGBT people.

HRC president Joe Solmonese stated, "This was a historic night when we felt the full embrace and commitment of the President of the United States. It’s simply unprecedented."

During his speech Saturday, Obama said his administration is "moving ahead" on the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, which bans gays and lesbians from serving openly in the armed forces. He promised to sign into law an inclusive hate crimes bill, which would expand federal protection to gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people; push the Employment Non-Discrimination Act; and repeal the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

The issue of marriage drew out the most emotion and applause from the crowd. Obama noted that when they look back over the years of his administration, they will "see a time in which we as a nation finally recognized relationships between two men or two women as just as real and admirable as relationships between a man and a woman."

Obama also made it no secret that he wants to go beyond policy changes and change hearts.

"There are still fellow citizens...good and decent people who hold fast to outworn arguments and old attitudes who fail to see your families like their families," he said. "Are we a nation that can transcend old attitudes and worn divides?"

While it was no surprise that Obama would address HRC members, conservatives were shocked to hear Obama promise what they consider "radical cultural changes."

Prominent evangelical and Southern Baptist theologian R. Albert Mohler Jr. said Obama's words "represent a moral revolution that goes far beyond what any other President has ever promised or articulated."

"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 seminary president commented.

Following Obama’s remarks, Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Family Research Council, similarly said it was clear from the speech that Obama's goal is not simply equal legal rights but rather "to overturn millennia of moral teaching that has acknowledged the harms of homosexual conduct and the unique benefits of marriage between a man and a woman." Continue »

Pages: 12
Sort by: Newest | Oldest | Agree | Disagree
All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Christian Post or its staff.
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7
  • Mon Oct 26, 2009 2:33 pm Agree: 36   Disagree: 20

    It is sooo sad to read some of these comments.
    Why does anyone think the Bible is the word of God? Becasue your folks told you, huh? Because your priest told you, huh?
    Ok-here's the truth-this may shock you-but hundreds of years ago at the Council of Nicaea, a group of old men who thought the world was flat, compiled and EDITED the current Bible you're looking at. They removed what they didn't think was right and added and cut and pasted...
    This is FACT-look it up-God wants you to look it up-that's why He blessed us with brains
    So, the truth is, the handful of anti-gay texts are meaningless. There is nothing about lesbians so are lesbians OK?
    Use your hearts-God and Jesus loved everyone. He would nto make people gay then condemn them to Hell. Don't preach "choice"-that's nonsense-no one would choose to be gay in this world...
    Please find God or you will burn in that Hell you think is reserved for others...

  • Fri Oct 23, 2009 5:29 pm Agree: 7   Disagree: 0

    So you follow every law of Leviticus? You also agree that women should have their heads covered when they pray? I'm sure you do, otherwise you'd be a hypocrite.

  • Fri Oct 23, 2009 2:06 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 8

    This language is very easily understood, unless God has given a blind eye to the path that one has chosen to see the truth.
    Repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand.


    Lev 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination.

    Lev 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.

    These are in the Bible....

    the word "lie" in Hebrew is shakab which means:
    1) to lie down
    a) (Qal)
    1) to lie, lie down, lie on
    2) to lodge
    3) to lie (of sexual relations)
    4) to lie down (in death)
    5) to rest, relax (fig)
    b) (Niphal) to be lain with (sexually)
    c) (Pual) to be lain with (sexually)
    d) (Hiphil) to make to lie down
    e) (Hophal) to be laid

  • Mon Oct 19, 2009 9:35 pm Agree: 11   Disagree: 3

    Trib, it most certainly is your interpretation. I skimmed over what you typed because I'm quite sure I've heard it all before, and of course, it was all nonsense. Everyone interprets the Bible, if they didn't, there would only be one form of Christianity, not hundreds.

    DP, nope, but God didn't say it disgusts him. That's your interpretation. Common sense asks why would it be disgusting, and there really is no logic to your ideas.

  • Mon Oct 19, 2009 9:10 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 7

    "That being said, I don't thumb myself, I'll save that for others :) I wonder if you follow all of lev, or only certain verses that you arbitrarily decide still apply. "

    First, I don't do much thumbing myself (my car works well).

    As for the law, I do keep what Jesus did not release under grace. Much of the law is there for our own protection and because certain things just plain disgust God. Since I love Him I am not interested in deliberately disgusting Him. Even if I didn't have to follow the law I would still not do the things that He has said disgusts Him.

    If your partner said he loved you but always did the things that disgusted you on purpose...would he really be showing love to you?

  • Mon Oct 19, 2009 9:07 pm Agree: 5   Disagree: 10

    It's not my interpretation, it's simply what GOD says! You can put your spin on it however you want, but you cannot change the word of God, and you cannot change what HE meant. The Bible say what it says. There is no changing it just because you want it to say something different than it does. This Book, given us by God is direct and to the point. We don't need to sit around trying to make it say something it does not, which is what you and someothers here are doing. We can decide that the grass is blue, or we can accept that it is green. We can decide that murder is a good thing, or we can believe God that it is not. YOU can believe that God will accept your homosexual "relationship", but that does not mean HE does!!! What is so hard about taking Him at His Word? It's a simple matter of believing, and turning from your sin. God can help you with that, Mike. All you have to do is ask. It is your decision whether you take God at His word or not, but be aware that the consiquences for willful disobedience is eternal death. that was the mistake satan made. He thought he would do things his way, that he would take over God's kingdom. He has failed, and his reward is the lake of fire. You are walking in the stubborness of your own heart, having created a god to your own liking. This god you believe in is NOT the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob. If it were, you would have believed Him and turned from your sin, and you have not.

    Tell ya what, when you are called before the judgement seat of God, argue the point with HIM. I think you are going to be in for one BIG surprise when He says "Depart from Me, ye that work iniquity I never knew you." That is, unless you repent and turn from your sin........

  • Mon Oct 19, 2009 9:05 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 5

    Hey Al...I'm Dan if I do and Dan if I don't....

  • Mon Oct 19, 2009 9:04 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 5

    " You shouldn't need to worry about how the majority finds your comments with a silly little icon, unless of course your ego is so fragile that constant reinforcement and stroking of it through praise is the main goal of your life."

    You are such a wag aren't you!!! HEY STEVE (opps sorry...didn't mean to yell) we have another wag!!!

  • Mon Oct 19, 2009 7:55 pm Agree: 5   Disagree: 1

    Daniel Paul »
    Mon Oct 19, 2009 7:40 pm : 0 : 0 Flag

    Now...if you scroll down the page you will see where there are several 10 thumbs in one direction or another. This is consistant with someone with multiple logins just going from tab to tab to give thumbs. So childish!!!
    ---------------------------------------------
    In Response: It shouldn't make any difference how many thumbs up or down a post gets, it is the responses to it that are important. You shouldn't need to worry about how the majority finds your comments with a silly little icon, unless of course your ego is so fragile that constant reinforcement and stroking of it through praise is the main goal of your life.

    IT doesn't matter as there is no limit that causes the post to disappear unless it is flagged and that is easily rectified by hitting the show button. Responding and quoting a flagged post is only a couple of extra keystrokes as well so what is your point?

    And finally what does it have to do with the topic here in any event? It doesn't

    If you spent half the time actually posting on topic instead of going off in some illogical direction the discussion would move along quite nicely, as it is it takes much more time to return to the original article and that doesn't keep it there for long enough to make the effort does it.
    TFR

  • Mon Oct 19, 2009 7:50 pm Agree: 5   Disagree: 1

    Trib, I have no problem with God's word, I have a problem with your interpretation of it!

    DP, actually, you can thumb multiple times by clicking repeatedly, I figured that out when I thought the thumbs weren't working and clicked one multiple times. That being said, I don't thumb myself, I'll save that for others :) I wonder if you follow all of lev, or only certain verses that you arbitrarily decide still apply.

  • Mon Oct 19, 2009 7:40 pm Agree: 4   Disagree: 5

    Now...if you scroll down the page you will see where there are several 10 thumbs in one direction or another. This is consistant with someone with multiple logins just going from tab to tab to give thumbs. So childish!!!

  • Mon Oct 19, 2009 7:37 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 6

    " Nowhere does the BIble condemn homosexuality or even homosexual sex when it wasn't strictly speaking to either rape or idolatry."

    Mike:

    Lev 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination.

    Lev 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.

    These are in the Bible....

    the word "lie" in Hebrew is shakab which means:
    1) to lie down
    a) (Qal)
    1) to lie, lie down, lie on
    2) to lodge
    3) to lie (of sexual relations)
    4) to lie down (in death)
    5) to rest, relax (fig)
    b) (Niphal) to be lain with (sexually)
    c) (Pual) to be lain with (sexually)
    d) (Hiphil) to make to lie down
    e) (Hophal) to be laid

  • Mon Oct 19, 2009 7:33 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 6

    Gguy...going through your posts from today it is clear you still don't understand the difference between law and grace....

  • Mon Oct 19, 2009 7:31 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 5

    "Romans 1 very clearly talks about sex for idol worship."

    ummm...no. It very clearly talks about quite a few things. Greek is structured differently than English. You are applying the rules of English to Greek to make your conclusion.

    The paragraph starts with this:

    Rom 1:18-19 ¶ For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

    Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed [it] unto them.


    So, the paragraph is talking about "all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness". Now, "all" is the key word here. This is not just idol worship. This is "all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men". Now, the word for all in greek is "pas" which means:

    1) individually
    a) each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things, everything

    2) collectively
    a) some of all types

    So, does "all" mean the same thing in the gay community?

  • Mon Oct 19, 2009 7:30 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 6

    Last comment was for Mike85 also.

  • Mon Oct 19, 2009 7:29 pm Agree: 4   Disagree: 7

    garageguy
    "
    Disgusting. You should be ashamed of yourself."

    You should take your own advice BLASPHEMER.

    Nothing you can say will ever change the Word of God, that your CHOSEN lifestyle is ABOMINATION.

    HisKid is right on target. No truer words were ever spoken, because they are the WORD OF GOD. Got a problem with His Word??? Take it up with HIM.

  • Mon Oct 19, 2009 6:50 pm Agree: 6   Disagree: 3

    Hiskid wrote:

    "How about Lev 18: 22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination."

    Great, that old chestnut again.

    So dear Hiskid, are we correct to assume you also throw stones at menstruating women who attend church (Lev. 15), abstain from trimming your hair (Lev. 19) advocate death to those who work on Sundays (Exodus 35), encourage parents selling their daughters into slavery (Exodus 21), refrain from eating shellfish (Lev. 11) or wearing cotton blend fabrics, or eating pork, etc. etc. etc.

    You presumably believe in stoning fortunetellers to death (Lev 20:27)? Killing a child who hits his parent (Ex 21:15)? Then there's this: "Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. (Deut 17:12). You better start killing, huh?

    I bet you don't follow a single one of those. Yet for some reason you are content to embrace the condemnation of an entire group of law-abiding, taxpaying fellow Americans who never did a thing to you, just because you don't like who they fall in love with.

    Disgusting. You should be ashamed of yourself.

    Congratulations on what you religion has turned you into.

  • Mon Oct 19, 2009 6:42 pm Agree: 7   Disagree: 2

    Hiskid, so you follow all of Lev word for word, or do you just cherry pick the verses that work towards your bias? Romans 1 very clearly talks about sex for idol worship. Revelation talks about people who are sexually immoral. It is not immoral to be in a committed loving relationship.

  • Mon Oct 19, 2009 6:38 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 6

    Mike 85 said: "my relationship with my partner is not based on sin, that is where your severe lack of logic comes into play. Nowhere does the BIble condemn homosexuality or even homosexual sex when it wasn't strictly speaking to either rape or idolatry."

    Really now!!! How about Lev 18:
    22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.
    23 Nor shall you mate with any animal, to defile yourself with it. Nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it. It is perversion.

    Seems to me that is directed at the ACT of homosexuality or beastiality, not whether there is a "committed" relationship. There should not BE a committed relationship that involves homosexuality in the first place, there there would be no "committed relationship."

    Then there is Roamns 1:
    26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature.
    27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
    28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting;
    29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers,
    30 backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things...............

    And what about Revelation 21
    8 But the cowardly, unbelieving,[e] abominable, murderers, SEXUALLY IMMORAL, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.”

    Hummm, didn't find a chapter and verse that says that homosexuality between "committed" parters is okay-dokey fine & dandy with God. Please find that Book, chapter and verse and post it so that we may learn of your great wisdom. Unless and until you can find such a verse that states imphatically and beyond a shadow of a doubt that your perversion is good in God's eyes, you will continue to be considered a person who is willfully out of the will of God.

    This is GOD's world. We who are the called out ones OBEY His Word. His Word says homosexuality is ABOMINATION. You may think you can skip into the back door of heaven, but I have news for you, you SIN will find you out!!

  • Mon Oct 19, 2009 5:43 pm Agree: 6   Disagree: 2

    Slacker, I can and have refuted that multiple times. As I said, you're committed to this caricature you have of me in your mind, and its clear that blocks you from rational or kind conversation.

  • Mon Oct 19, 2009 5:40 pm Agree: 4   Disagree: 0

    smbga, yup, I do wonder why I am gay, but the more I worried about it or tried to change it when I was in high school, the more depressed I became. When I accepted myself as a gay man, I gained a tremendous amount of self confidence and can safely say that I do feel comfortable being gay now. That being said, I still don't come out to everyone I meet or hold my boyfriend's hand in public, but only for safety reasons.

  • Mon Oct 19, 2009 5:39 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 5

    mike85: do you ever feel uncomfortable being gay? do you ever wonder why you are gay?

  • Mon Oct 19, 2009 5:36 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 6

    "DP, my relationship with my partner is not based on sin, that is where your severe lack of logic comes into play. Nowhere does the BIble condemn homosexuality or even homosexual sex when it wasn't strictly speaking to either rape or idolatry. Slacker, you just now made something up. You have this caricature of me in your mind and will stick to that and nothing else. So be it. "

    You just lied, the Bible speaks of homosexuality in several spots, can you refute that, no... You just call people names. No I haven't made anything up, Dawkins is a philospher, just because he has a degree in biology, doesn't make one a scientist, there are scientist out there that he has used their information so that you will buy his books, but he hasn't done anything to further science...

  • Mon Oct 19, 2009 5:32 pm Agree: 5   Disagree: 1

    smbga, I can safely say I always knew I was different. For instance in first grade I transfered to a new school, and I remember choosing to play house with the girls rather than play kickball with the boys. My earliest gay crush was in 5th grade on the 6th grade social studies teacher.

  • Mon Oct 19, 2009 5:27 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 3

    mike85: were you a child when you realized you had feelings for the same sex? just wondering.

  • Mon Oct 19, 2009 5:15 pm Agree: 4   Disagree: 0

    smbga, nope.

  • Mon Oct 19, 2009 5:10 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    mike85: are any of your family members gay?

  • Mon Oct 19, 2009 4:41 pm Agree: 5   Disagree: 1

    DP, my relationship with my partner is not based on sin, that is where your severe lack of logic comes into play. Nowhere does the BIble condemn homosexuality or even homosexual sex when it wasn't strictly speaking to either rape or idolatry. Slacker, you just now made something up. You have this caricature of me in your mind and will stick to that and nothing else. So be it.

  • Mon Oct 19, 2009 3:27 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 5

    changing the subject for a moment, I am wondering when someone will post a good article on here about necromancy and how it has invaded the church.

  • Mon Oct 19, 2009 3:26 pm Agree: 5   Disagree: 2

    Flagged as inappropriate. show DP, my relationship with my partner is not based on sin, that is where your severe lack of logic comes into play. Nowhere does the BIble condemn homosexuality or even homosexual sex when it wasn't strictly speaking to either rape or idolatry. Slacker, you just now made something up. You have this caricature of me in your mind and will stick to that and nothing else. So be it. hide

  • Mon Oct 19, 2009 2:36 pm Agree: 4   Disagree: 11

    ""... most will be suckered into believing it, because ALL the evidence is not released, only that which will make the uneducated believe..."

    Religion? "

    No, all the information is out there, however people like you still continue to spit in God's face...

  • Mon Oct 19, 2009 12:27 pm Agree: 11   Disagree: 6

    "You lie and make things up to suit your sinful choices..."

    "Prove to me he isn't a philospher, has he done any research? No ..."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_publications_by_Richard_Dawkins#Academic_papers

    1960s
    Dawkins, R. (1968). "The ontogeny of a pecking preference in domestic chicks". Z Tierpsychol 25 (2): 170–86. PMID 5684149.
    Dawkins, R. (1969). "Bees Are Easily Distracted". Science 165 (3895): 751. doi:10.1126/science.165.3895.751. PMID 17742255.
    [edit]1970s
    Dawkins, R. (1976). "Growing points in ethology". in Bateson, P.P.G. and Hinde, R.A.. Hierarchical organization: A candidate principle for ethology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Dawkins, R.; Carlisle, T.R. (1976). "Parental investment, mate desertion and a fallacy". Nature (London: Nature Publishing Group) 262: 131-133.
    Treisman, M.; Dawkins, R. (1976). "The “cost of meiosis”: is there any?". Journal of Theoretical Biology (London: Academic Press) 63 (2): 479-484. doi:10.1016/0022-5193(76)90047-3.
    Dawkins, R. (1976). "Universal Darwinism". in Bendall, D.S.. Evolution from Molecules to Men. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 403-425.
    Dawkins R (1978). "Replicator selection and the extended phenotype". Z Tierpsychol 47 (1): 61–76. PMID 696023.
    Dawkins, R.; Krebs, J.R. (1978). "Animal signals: information or manipulation". Behavioural Ecology: An Evolutionary Approach. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications. pp. 282-309.
    Dawkins, R. (1979) "Twelve Misunderstandings of Kin Selection". Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie 51, 184-200.
    Dawkins R, Krebs JR (1979). "Arms races between and within species". Proc. R. Soc. Lond., B, Biol. Sci. 205 (1161): 489–511. PMID 42057.
    Brockmann, H.J.; Dawkins, R.; Grafen A. (1979). "Joint nesting in a digger wasp as an evolutionarily stable preadaptation to social life". Behaviour (London: Academic Press) 71: 203-244.
    Dawkins, Richard; Brockmann, H.J., Grafen, A. (1979). "Evolutionarily stable nesting strategy in a digger wasp". Journal of Theoretical Biology 77 (4): 473-496. doi:10.1016/0022-5193(79)90021-3.
    [edit]1980s
    Dawkins, R. (1980). "Good strategy or evolutionarily stable strategy". in Barlow, G.W. and Silverberg, J.. Sociobiology: Beyond Nature/Nurture?. Colorado: Westview Press. pp. 331—337. ISBN 0-89-158960-0.
    Dawkins, Richard; Brockmann, H.J. (1980). "Do digger wasps commit the concorde fallacy?". Animal Behaviour 28 (3): 892-896. doi:10.1016/S0003-3472(80)80149-7.
    Krebs, J.R.; Dawkins, R. (1984). "Animal signals: mind-reading and manipulation". in Krebs, J. R. and Davies, N.B.. Behavioural Ecology: An Evolutionary Approach. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications. pp. 380-402.
    [edit]1990s
    Dawkins, R. (1990). "Parasites, desiderata lists and the paradox of the organism". Parasitology 100 Suppl: S63–73. PMID 2235064.

  • Mon Oct 19, 2009 11:56 am Agree: 7   Disagree: 4

    "... most will be suckered into believing it, because ALL the evidence is not released, only that which will make the uneducated believe..."

    Religion?

  • Mon Oct 19, 2009 11:43 am Agree: 5   Disagree: 10

    ""You lie and make things up to suit your sinful choices..."

    Dawkins = philosopher ? "

    Prove to me he isn't a philospher, has he done any research? No he only regurgitates the same talking points that other scientist have created to sucker people into believing lies... If you only give a group one picture of an extinct ape and expect anyone to believe it, most will be suckered into believing it, because ALL the evidence is not released, only that which will make the uneducated believe...

  • Mon Oct 19, 2009 11:26 am Agree: 7   Disagree: 4

    "You lie and make things up to suit your sinful choices..."

    Dawkins = philosopher ?

  • Mon Oct 19, 2009 11:11 am Agree: 4   Disagree: 8

    "Slacker, its funny that you accuse me of making things up and then do that exact thing. Craig wasn't using the word of God, he was using a lame argument. I also didn't call him names, so I'm wondering where you got that little gem from. Perhaps you could read my posts before you bas me like a good little "christian"? Thanks! "

    I did read the post where you called him a liar. I don't make anything up, I read the word of God as it is and accept it as the truth. You sir are the one that perverts it with your sinful nature. You lie and make things up to suit your sinful choices...

  • Mon Oct 19, 2009 11:08 am Agree: 8   Disagree: 10

    "Romans 1 most certainly says nothing about a committed gay relationship"

    Does two alcoholics being in a committed relationship somehow make being an alcoholic OK? Does it nullify "Be not drunk with wine"? Of course not. What about two thieves in a committed relationship? Does that make stealing OK? What about two homosexuals in a committed relationship? Does the nullify the sin of porneia?

    "Committed relationships" based on sin are built on sand.

  • Mon Oct 19, 2009 10:37 am Agree: 6   Disagree: 3

    Slacker, its funny that you accuse me of making things up and then do that exact thing. Craig wasn't using the word of God, he was using a lame argument. I also didn't call him names, so I'm wondering where you got that little gem from. Perhaps you could read my posts before you bas me like a good little "christian"? Thanks!

  • Mon Oct 19, 2009 10:01 am Agree: 4   Disagree: 7

    "why are there so many homeless, unadopted special needs kids"

    Well since we don't teach children about Christ in public School, we couldn't blame the Christians for it. Let see, is it for the love of money that people do what they want. Yes they love their money and don't want to give it away. Greed, just like the secular society wants. Blame the sinful, greedy, self posessed society that we have created by removing God and Christ from everything in this society...

  • Mon Oct 19, 2009 9:52 am Agree: 4   Disagree: 10

    Craig, what you will realize with Mike is that he is so blinded by his sin that he will make up things as he goes along and then have the audacity to call you names and say you are making things up when you quote scripture.

    He thinks that Homosexuality in a "relationship" isn't against God's word because the two people choose to be the relationship or some such, even though scripture plainly calls out homosexuality as sinful in several places. It doesn't call out the relationship because the basis for the relationship, committed or not; is still sinful.

    But according to him, you are condemning him because you quote the Word of God, which he hasn't accepted...

    What amazes me about it is how mike hasn't accepted christ and blashems the holy spirit by relating God with Sin...

  • Sun Oct 18, 2009 9:00 pm Agree: 9   Disagree: 5

    Craig, Romans 1 most certainly says nothing about a committed gay relationship. If you cared to study the book you're reading, you'd know history also plays into it (then you'd find out that Paul was speaking about orgies in which people worshipped idol gods, sometimes using sex as a form of worship.) As far as your argument against gay marriage: it is simply laughable. Once again, I'm sure you think you used logic, but I just don't see it anywhere!

  • Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:54 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 6

    haha, its so funny that any comment that presents a logical reasonable argument opposing the notion that homosexuality is right, or anyone who exegetically shows from scripture that God declares homosexual behaviour to be sin gets an automatic thumbs down from the homosexual advocates on here.
    where did meaningful debate go?

    @mike85, you should try addressing peoples arguments rather than attacking the person. you claim im illogical, and a liar, but dont say how.

    also, do you claim to be a Christian, do you beleive God has spoken? if yes then listen to His words, there all in the Bible. Homosexuality is sinful. who would celebrate sin??? Read Romans 1, its pretty plain and clear.

  • Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:46 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 3

    I have two young children who think they are on pacific time! I better go explain what "go to bed" means....

    Nite

  • Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:44 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 2

    OOOooooo....I'm going to be spending some time at NOLO! Thanks Mike!!!

  • Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:41 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 7

    "DP, you're not using the law or logic."

    Law and logic are subjective things. Many people feel the pro-gay folks aren't using the law or logic and neither are the judges that are twisting the law.

    My point is simple. Where does "redefining" marriage stop and who has the right to say so? You spoke of consent. What if a 10 year old girl gives "consent" and all the adults are in agreement? Who says what's right and wrong? This is why we need someone greater than ourselves to determine right and wrong. Those who play in the professional game do not make the rules. They simply play by them....

    Now the reason I asked for the list is that I never knew I had 2400 rights!!! I'll take a look-see....

  • Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:35 pm Agree: 10   Disagree: 1

    DP, you're not using the law or logic.

    Here's some of the marriage rights: http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/article-30190.html

    Tell me how a Basset Hound would benefit from those.

  • Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:33 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 6

    Here's one more...he and the dog sleep in the same bed so why not allow them to marry?

  • Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:31 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 5

    "2400 legal marriage rights"

    Where do I find this list!!! :D

  • Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:31 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 6

    The person wanting to marry his basset hound could also claim the dog as a dependent.

  • Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:30 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 7

    "A basset hound cannot give consent to marriage, nor would it benefit in any way from getting 2400 legal marriage rights"

    Then the law is "unfair" to the person who wants to marry the basset hound. Also, a basset hound could benefit from a healthcare plan. After all, if they were married then they would have to cover the basset hound.

    All this may sound silly to you but it is the legal arguements I'm looking at. Right now in Canada a polygamist is going to use the arguement that gays can marry so the model of one man and one woman is no longer valid. It is OK for a man to have 5 wives?

Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging comments that are unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable.
Contact Us if you have any questions, comments, or concerns.
Comment on this story
ID Password

Don't have a Christian Post ID? Signing up is easy. Click Here

  • icon1
  • icon2
  • icon3
  • icon4
  • icon5
The Christian Post reserves the right to terminate the account of any User who violates our Terms of Use.
Advertisement
Advertisement
CP Shopping
  • Jewelry
  • Health
  • Gifts
  • Music
  • Coins

Bracelets | Chains | Crosses | Earrings | Gemstone |

Featured contents & Giveaways
Joolwe :
Cross-pendant necklace
Zondervan

Struggling to succeed in the Nashville music scene, talented singer/songwriter Parker James finds the competition fierce even deadly. A young woman's murder, industry corruption, a

Featured Advertiser Links