Obama Calls for Repeal of Defense of Marriage Act

One could expect no less from the same people who support the murder of live babies.

Anything to destroy the institutions that hold America together is fair game to these cretins.

 

I expect nothing anti christian from him, murder live birth babies, they are a punishmant, pro homosexual, saying it is not immoral, and now an attack on marriage that God created. He oozes hatred of God.

 

And people are so blinded by his "otherworldliness" that they fall all over him...

The guy is a creep!

 

What? Is he from Mars? If so, I definitely will vote for him. Remember how cool Uncle Martin was when he lived with Tim O'Hara? That thing with his antennae...pure magic!

 

As long as the govt is in the taxation business, adoption business, property ownership business, et.al., then they are de facto in the marriage definition business.

 

So you support Representatives as Obama, who support overturning the "Will" of the People?

In every State where same sex marriage was voted upon by the People, the People unanimously voted against it and in support of traditional marriage. As between a man and woman.

This was also the case in California as the People, through a Democratic process, voted to ban same sex marriage. As noted, the California Supreme Court has now overturned that. The question must beg for Obama, Gavin Newsom, and others, "why do the People have a voice?" I suppose they could accomplish much more if that were not the case but hey, they are fairing well regardless!


It is a FACT the Government IS involved with marriage and that is not going to change. So your point is completely mute MP. I think God would also prefer we fought for the sanctity of marriage as well to work in lowering the divorce rate. Otherwise, please show how standing for the sanctity of marriage is not a "real defense" of marriage and that gay marriage is OK in God's eyes. Because if it is not OK in Gods eye's what type of testimony is it for us to be indifferent as Christians?


Lastly and with due respect, you seem to make outlandish statements at times and when it is shown as such then refuse to answer. Salt City Baptist asked of you, in lieu of your support of Obama, who supports gay marriage, if

but did not recieve an answer.


You also made an outrageous and egregious statement towards Churches in another thread "ACLU: Truth vs Fantasy” in which you stated “While the ACLU has taken some unusual cases, overall they do much good……..I suspect they do much more good than most churches in this country….”

You then refrained from answering the challenges posed. Don't you think it best to answer or stand by your arguments before moving on? Especially when such deals in most part with God loving and fearing Churches/Christians? In that case I would simply also point out Churches support and help millions of people in this Nation and around the World on a daily basis, not to mention bringing many to salvation as other's pointed out in that thread. For the life of me I cannot see how the ACLU can be so much better than most Churches in America as you stated.

Take care,
Ralph

 

When you feel restrained by things like posting rules but actually support homosexuality then you feel the need to redirect to unrelated topics in order to attack what you don't like. In this case that would be condemnation of homosexuality.

 

To be overturned, it would have to be the "will of the people" to do so, or be found unconstitutional in a court challenge.

I don't know if this is true or not, and don't feel like going on a search. However that is not the point I was making.

Courts have the right to overrule the people's votes if they vote in an unconstitutional law.

True, and I am not saying they are not. I am saying they have no business being involved. And I think you meant to say "moot", not "mute". Moot meaning irrelevant and mute meaning unable to speak.

I don't presume to speak for God. I find that to be dangerous ground. As for being different as Christians, that is a religious question and not one of civil legal systems.

I don't always see these questions, other times I choose not to beat my head against the wall. In this case, I did not see the question. So what is the question? I am not following your syntax here. As to the question about supporting gay marriage, I defer to board rules.

I stand by that statement. In my opinion, most churches are asleep in their own little world and do precious little for society at large. Like I said, sad to say, but I believe it to be true. I also believe the ACLU does tremendous good in defense of the civil rights of Americans, even taking on unpopular cases. Because freedom doesn't mean just freedom for the majority opinion. If all are not free, none are.

If you will use the search facility on this board, you will see I have talked about these issues in many previous threads. I find it pointless to re-enact every thread for the benefit of new members.

Likewise.

 

Hello Magnetic Poles

Yes this is true. However the glaring word is "if". In this case the People and their respective Legislatures are within their Constitutional right in having a say upon such issues. Otherwise the issue would have been settled many decades and nor would the Federal Defense of Marriage Act have ever been allowed.

Well it is OK not to want to do research but it helps if one is going to debate such issues.

Yes it is true. Every state in which the People voted upon gay marriage, I think 16 in recent years, overwhelmingly voted against it. This is also the National opinion and was the case in California. Other states already had laws banning such and some 40 states have enacted their own DOMA's. http://www.domawatch.org/about/index.html


Your point was to "support" Obama's stance on his call to "fully repeal" the Federal Defense of Marriage Act.

Such would usurp the authority of the States and the Will of their respective Citizens. However, this is what the gay community attempts through Judicial activism as otherwise they would not get what they want.

Yes, you are correct. I meant to say "moot" as in "irrelevant". I should have just properly stated your argument was completely irrelevant. Thanks for the correction!

I don't have to speak for God, the Bible does. His stance on homosexuality is clear and I would encourage you to research it.

So bestiality, man/child relationships, polygamy etc. etc. should also be allowed!? As otherwise none are free in you opinion. Yes, minority rights are protected in regards to sex and race etc. A chosen minority lifestyle is not!

First, I am not new and have seen your postings! I had to re-register due to a lost password.
Second, it is weak that you feel it is OK to continue to promote views but then critisize when proper and Biblical challenges to those views are raised.:tonofbricks:
Lastly, I did not raise the question of your specific stance, I simply pointed out you refuse to answer people at times. BTW, Salt City Baptist is not a new member.

take care,
Ralph

 

Question: Are not people required to declare they are Christians, to post on this board? It seems an awesome thing indeed, that one could take the Lord's name lightly or vainly.

 

What in the world are you talking about?

 

I have not seen anyone on either side of this debate do that.

 

These christians that hold to ungodly political platforms do not even see their contradictions. They are so indoctrinated with hate for GWB that the principles of what christianity stands for are thrown out the window.

AJ

 

Who is talking about President Bush?? Where are all these strawmen coming from? Taking the Lord's name in vain? Hate for Bush? Nobody light a match, or all this straw is gonna go up in flames!

Wow...you boys need to get a cup of coffee and wake up before you post! Here is one for each of you:

[_]D [_]D

 

I knew you wouldnt understand what was being said...thus proving my post.

AJ

 

It's allright...just go back to sleep. It'll be alright. :sleep:

:laugh:

 

Maybe some need to look at the Book of Romans dealing with government. Instituted and allowed by God to contain lawlessness, If government is not allowed to enact laws that protect and defend the very core of our Chrsitian beliefs then where have we gone. To repeal DOMA is to say WEemdorse gay marriage, since we are the ones to elect the representatives. To insinuate that government leave the work to the churches is a step on a path of repealing all moral law and heading down a very slippery slope. Would we next say a pedophile has the right to seduce a child unless the church steps in and stops him or her ?

 

Contain lawlessness? Absolutely. Institute Christian theology, or any specific religion's
theology? Absolutely not.

 

Sir, I would ask you what you define as lawlessness ? Is it violation of God's law ?

 

It is a violation of God's law to lie. Do you want a law banning lying, other than the current law that bans lying under oath?