Obama endorses same-sex marriage (Page 4)

Did you read the posts before this one? 

The previous posts were specifically talking about who would most likely not vote for Pr Obama now that he has offered his support for gay marriage.  The response was "Christians" and then the clarification of "Christians who don't support gay marriage".   Geez, even our local preacher on the board chimed in to thank Asalzwed for the clarification. 

Does this mean that it will solely be Christians who don't support gay marriage?  If that's what you got out of the posts, then I think you're reading WAY too much into things. 

I find it interesting that Obama states he is for Gay/Lesbian Marriage, but the goes to say he respects the states choice to decided for themselves.  It's interesting because it means he can sit back and not really make any attempts to help any gay and lesbian couples.  Also this would be one of the first times that he actually seemed to care about states rights during his presidency.

I feel this is totally a publicity stunt because he had to respond to what Biden said, and didn't want to go against what most of his Democratic base feels.  It's called pandering.

there are a number of "Evangelical Christians" that have told me directly that I am not a Christian, for the record I am Roman Catholic.o I am very careful about other peoples opiniopns of the nature of another persons faith, or lack their own.

It bothers me when good people of faith use that faith as justification to dislike or repress a group of people. I would think if they truly have faith and love in their heart it would be just the opposite. All people are sinners period and it is for us to have compassion for our fellow man and woman and since we are all sinners in the first place.

The one thing people still haven't answered is why they consider one sin worse than the others? I think adulterers are some of the lowest people on this earth but I think it would be wrong if I tried to pass a bill saying that if you are an adulterer that you cannot be married.  

From the original article I linked to... the people who spoke out against Obama's statement...

(Tony) Perkins continued. "Romney, who has signed a pledge to support a marriage protection amendment to the U.S. Constitution, may have been handed the key to social conservative support by President Obama." - Head of the Family Research Council

Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York, the president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, released a statement saying the president's comments were "deeply saddening."

Ralph Reed, a top organizer among religious conservatives, said Obama’s announcement was a “gift to the Romney campaign.”

“This decision may have made Barack Obama a one-term president,” Bob Vander Plaats the head of The Family Leader, a conservative faith group focused on politics in Iowa

"I think the president has been in this place for awhile and that he chose this time because he thought that it might shift the balance of power," Bishop Harry Jackson the senior pastor of Hope Christian Church said. Jackson has long campaigned against same sex marriage from his pulipit in suburban Washingtion, DC

I'll tell you what is offensive. The statements coming from these religious folks are what's offensive.

I agree that there are Christians/Catholics who are more open-minded than these folks, but people have the impressions they have because of your leaders. You want to go after someone, go after the spokespeople of your faith.

Personally, I don't think Obama gives a rip about states' rights...period.  He has turned the Attorney General's Office loose to oppose state actions at every turn.  He is using the "respect states' choice" argument for this issue to simply escape the need to take any action himself.  Very convenient.  Usually I think Biden is a loose cannon whose mouth embarasses Obama every once in a while, but in this case the cynic in me believes that Bidens actions on Meet the Press (and wasn't there another administration (cabinet level?) person who made similar remarks a few days ago?) was a calculated move on the part of the administration to simply break the ice on the issue and paved the way for Obama to make his announcement of his "evolving stance" just a few months before an election when he needs to solidify his base.

Do you see a difference between stealing a loaf of bread to feed your family versus Raping or murdering a child?

Clearly one is a monetary loss and the other damages the human being (Physically mentally, emotionally, or sexually) sometimes beyond repair.

x2.  Yet he only "evolved" the day after the vote in NC.  No need to "evolve" before the vote right...?

Bush made some dumb decisions in his 2 terms, but this has got to be the most 2 faced President ever...

*facepalm*

These people can make whatever statements they want. I'm not sure where I said that they didn't have the right to make offensive statements.

Its Only Money was complaining about the stereotypes that many religious people are under, and I pointed out a possible source of said stereotypes.

Yes clearly adultery causes huge damages to people physically, mentally, emotionally, and sexually to a family unit which is the base of what we are talking about here so you are right and thank you for proving my point.

You think Cardinal Dolan's comments are offensive?

Really?

He's articulating and defending the Catholic faith.
He's doing his job.
Is it surprising that the Cardinal actually believes in what the faith teaches?

Catholic doctrine regarding marriage and human sexuality will never change.
Period.
End of story.

The Catholic Church's teaching is very clear.

People then have the right to either be Catholic and assent to the Church's teaching or not.
Choosing to willfully not assent to clear teaching comes with consequences.

Thankfully, we have a leader in Cardinal Dolan who will continue to articulate that
in the coming months and years.
 

So what? The implication that somehow because someone is "doing their job" that they're off the hook, is laughable.

I find this piece of Catholic teaching offensive then. It matters not to me what the root of the offensive content is.

The TSA "does their job" when they frisk 4 and 5 year olds.
The North Korean army "does their job" when they throw people in prison camps.
Businesspeople "do their job" when they layoff thousands of people to improve the stock price.
Mark Zuckerberg "does his job" when he adds yet another privacy-exposing thing to Facebook.

Sure, they are all "doing their job." That's not relevant. It's still offensive. 

Big appa asked: "why they consider one sin worse than the others?"

Stop trying to read things into my responses. I pointed out that one particular specific crime results in simple monetary loss, while the other specific crime resulted in the damage of an innocent. 

^^^^^^^^^ Thank you

Yes, and I agreed with you like I said in my other post.  

Catholicism is not some cafeteria where you can pick and choose which dishes you want and which you don't.

The Church's teaching on human sexuality is rooted in both faith and reason.
The reasoning is sound and is more compelling than alternate arguments.

As Catholics we have the right to form our consciences on matters of faith, as do all people.
However, we do not have the right to willfully ignore defined teaching as we form our consciences.
The Vatican II document Dignitatis Humanae, Declaration on Religious Freedom, is quite clear on that. 

I bring that up because misinterpretation of that Vatican II document is the cause for so much confusion among Catholics
over the past forty years regarding matters of human sexuality in particular.
It needs to be understood by any Catholic caught in the trap of dissent from Church teaching. 

Have Ya been in COJ before?!?!?!?!?