Obama: ‘America supposed to be’ a homosexual culture

The logical extension, according to my logic at least, was equality and freedom and such, not homosexuality, and not having America supposed to be a homosexual culture. What even is a homosexual culture? Also, a person with morals can still be homosexual or in favor of it, same with a religious person. But yeah I won't babble about that...

It is evident that his saying this now was risky, I'm sure he knows that. Nevertheless I do agree with that last statement. He seems not to realize that. Hollywood is just a tiny slice of voters. Even though you can bend people's opinions with your campaign it doesn't go as far as changing people's heartfelt views.

And it can't change what God has already said on the subject either, Liisi.

So, speaking of doing what God says then, I suppose you forbid yourself from doing all the other things the Bible forbids?

This includes shaving (Leviticus 19:27),
gossip (Leviticus 19:16),
cursing (Ephesians 5:4),
eating lobster (Leviticus 11:10),
eating pork (Leviticus 11:7),
cotton/polyester blends (Leviticus 19:19),
associating with women who are on their periods (Leviticus (15:19-20),
tattoos (Leviticus 19:28),
divorce (Mark 10:8),
women speaking in church (Corinthians 14:34-35)
losing your virginity before marriage (Deuteronomy 22:20-21)...
and so on.

Liisi: I'm so glad you asked. You did ask, right, you weren't just jumping to a conclusion?

As a Christian I do try to follow God's commands as they apply to the New Church--the things that scripture teaches applies to the Gentiles in the here and now, rather than the Jews of the Old Testament.

Jane: Yes it was a question - though looking back I must've formed it a little poorly. I apologize. My point was, though, that since we make exceptions and stretch and bend other banned things in the bible, why not this?

Rory: That's what I was trying to say but you said it better. Kudos.

Indeed nobody escapes death. And the chances for a homosexual to die of AIDS, excluding Third World countries, has gotten a lot lower over the years. It's all about educating people. And about knowing your partner, just as in a heterosexual relationship. You can be in a heterosexual relationship and die of AIDS or some other STD, just as well. It isn't a strictly homosexual disease.

I'm gay and I intend on living my life as I think best in order to be happy. I don't see myself any different from a straight eighteen-year-old girl, except the person I intend on spending my life with is, indeed, a woman. If I am held accountable in the end for living my life this way, then so be it. I don't fear that. Everybody dies. And if Heaven isn't my place (though I'm not much of a believer) then that's how it is.

Liisi,
Bear with me as I try to frame my response in a way you will, hopefully, understand. First, Christians aren't taught to make exceptions, stretch, or bend God's Word. We have a respect for it--including those parts that you might think are irrelevant due to the culture of today.

I may not adhere to the Old Testament teachings about pork--because Jesus told Peter he didn't need to refrain from eating it if he gave it to him, but that still doesn't mean eating pork might not cause me the health concerns scripture attempted to keep men from experiencing back then.

The Bible says that "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."

I liken it to visiting your grandmother. She might have lived in an earlier time, but don't you believe that the wisdom she shared with you years ago is still pertinent to today?

About discarding the teachings on homosexuality, you need to know that homosexuality is a sin, unlike the eating of pork, which was a food issue, and homosexuality is an issue from the Old Testament all the way to Revelations in the New Testament, not just the OT.

Thus there is no room for doubt about how God feels on this topic, as it is made perfectly clear: He hates it and will not let those who practice it into Heaven when judgement day comes.

Sorry, sent my response before saw your new one! But I think I understand you. And you are correct, it does differ. I am pretty skeptical about how much it has, in the end, to do with God (the Bible I mean). Since it is by inspiration of Him. I don't mean that as anything insulting, though it may seem like it. I'm just being critical about it, I guess.

Liisi,
While you have every right to make choices you alone will bear the responsibility for, please do look at the most recent news regarding HIV and AIDS, especially if you--or someone you know--is in a relationship with a black woman, as it is a falsity that this terrible disease is on the decline.

Just today recent news was released and it can be found on Google when you type in HIV.

Thanks for reading my article and taking the time to communicate and post comments.

And about the Grandma thing, I agree to an extent. I think that, while her teachings can be wise, I would adapt it to the time I am in. Things change over time.

Yes, I do know it is not on the decline. I strongly think people should be better educated with it and get tested regularly etc. It is hard to do, though, since speaking of anything sexual is a more or less strong taboo in most cultures.

And no problem. I should have started using my account here earlier, I really like talking with people like this and in the process educating myself, so to speak.

With the ways and means of today, as also used by heterosexual couples, two males and two females can, in fact, procreate. I think when they took marriage as a union into a government issue they should have at least changed the name to save us from all this. Not everyone is Christian. But they may still want a marriage-like union, recognized by the government. They have a thing like this in France. They separate marriage as a religious institution and what one would call civil union or civil marriage, in the lack of a better word, except civil union isn't strictly for same-sex couples.

Mind checking my first sentence? A woman can go to a sperm bank, a man (though less probable) could have surrogate mother for their sperm. Of course it would be impossible to have genes from two females in the same baby so yes, I should have used another term. I do know my biology. I'm not a stupid liberal either, might I add. So let me correct, it is possible for two females or two males to have a child they call their own via the methods I mentioned earlier. Or whatever other method the couple may find.

So, in essence, I stand corrected. Feel free to get an ego-boost.

However, if you see artificial insemination and then the adoption of the child by the other parent (of the same or opposite sex, take your pick) as not acceptable means of having offspring, then just forget what I said.

Why not get, umm, deeper, maree? If I think sex in general is yucky, can I demand that no one be allowed to get married? I mean, putting that thing in there and all that messy sticky stuff. What for? We can make all the babies we need with artificial insemination. Men would still have to do some nasty things to provide the sperm, but it would be so much cleaner and healthier. Stop those diseases and all. (What do you think, Jane? Surely we don't want heterosexuals to die from AIDS, either? Let's ban marriage (and I suppose sex, somehow) altogether.)

Aniko, Take a look around you. What form of procreation did Obama choose? As you can see, even the president chose the traditional form of creating a family. Look at the CDC statistics. It shows that heterosexuals who contracted AIDS in 2010 was 1/5th less than men who had sex with other men did. And even those heterosexuals who did get the virus often did so due to being with a homosexual spouse or sex partner that they didn't know was cheating on them in that way.

So, no, the statistics bear out the logical disregard for forgoing traditional marriage for same-sex or doing away with traditional marriage, as you or other same-sex marriage advocates might wish.

J, here's what R.F. said "no religion that I'm aware of requires married couples to procreate or even to attempt to procreate."

Therein lies the problem: He doesn't know the Word of God, so he doesn't know what the Bible does and doesn't say. Hence, his total confusion on the topic.

I think everyone really understands, Jane, that sexually transmitted diseases get passed on because some, umm, many people have multiple partners. (This is clear from your own comments, too.) A (truly) monogamous gay couple in which neither partner has the disease has zero risk. A heterosexual couple in which one or both partners are promiscuous is obviously worse off. But your argument is strange, as others have pointed out, since people will have sex with or without being married, and if being married does anything, it will make couples more monogamous. Another strange consequence of your argument is that you'd have to support lesbian couples getting married, since they have the lowest rate of disease transmission. (Perhaps only lesbian marriage should be allowed?)

Glad to know they understand that Aniko. However, we can't say that a truly monogamous gay (or heterosexual) couple is without potential risk of getting AIDS, in reality. So I have to disagree with that statement of yours. And, unfortunately, being married doesn't guarantee a spouse won't stray and commit infidelity, be they gay or straight, so I can't agree with that position either.

A truly monogamous couple, whether gay or heterosexual, in which neither partner is currently HIV positive has no risk of contracting HIV sexually (barring one of them being raped, of course), because you can't catch a virus from someone who doesn't have it. By "truly monogamous" I meant that they don't just believe themselves to be monogamous, but they really ("truly") are: neither partner is cheating.

But I see that you now agree that there is no difference between gay and heterosexual couples in this respect - thanks.

Thanks for clarifying Aniko!

Thanks for reading everyone and putting your two cents worth in. R.F. just google the term "homosexual culture" and you will find a plethora of links.

Darned if I know, Lora. :-)

Because society has labeled one as such, Lora.

"I am quite certain that the founding fathers would not have intended for people to have AK-47's in their homes for "protection"."
I don't think the founding father would have had a problem with it. Protection is PROTECTION in whatever form it takes.

Here's your logical extension from the Constitution, assuming your opposition to same-sex marriage is religiously based:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Here's a good one from the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Here's one better, Jared: If the citizens of a state vote it into law; it is law. So when NC and California voted to ban same-sex marriage, it wasn't for a lone radical judge to try and undo what the majority said they wanted.

And it isn't for the president to try and now force Americans to accept a cultural lifestyle choice just because he wants to pick the financial pockets of the people who live it.

And when North Carolina last voted to define marriage, they banned interracial marriages. It was up to "radical" judges to defend the American promise that the rights of the few can't be infringed upon by the will of the many.

So you're saying Obama thinks he is a judge and jury now in addition to president, Jared?

"Here's one better, Jared: If the citizens of a state vote it into law; it is law. "

The best response to that is that someday a large number of radical Muslims overrun your state and vote in Sharia law.

What a silly view of how to enact laws. I'm sure if the civil rights of blacks in America was put up to a vote in NC or SC or Georgia or Louisiana in the 1960's, it would have been voted down. That makes it right? That a bunch of bigoted people in one geographic location get to vote down the human rights of US citizens?

Actually, Jane, it is for judges to say even if the majority vote in favour of something, if that thing is a violation of constitutionally guaranteed rights. That is the point of a Constitution, to prevent the rights of all from being subverted to the whim of a political majority at any particular moment. Judges are the mechanism for enforcing constitutional rights and striking down unconstitutional laws.

You bring up an excellent point, Rory, which I will gladly expound upon given you opened the door. Let's say, for arguments sake, that the Court decided to hear and uphold traditional marriage views over same-sex marriage. Then your argument that the constitutional rights were violated by those seeking a same-sex marriage would still exist, but you would have to live with the fact that the Court disagrees with you--and all the homosexual community who feels that way.

In addition, you give lots of power to the Constitution to "prevent the rights of all from being subverted to the whim of a political majority," but that argument flies in the face of logic and fact: Obama passed Obamacare without a majority of the public's support, so if the Court doesn't shoot it down this summer, then where's the "Constitutionally guaranteed rights" of those who opposed that legislation?

I say all that Rory to say this: No one is guaranteed what they perceive to be "their right" on any issue. At best, and with a judicial system that is fair, all anyone of else can hope for in pursuing legal litigation, which could include a Supreme Court appeal, is that precedent will rule the day unless a majority on the court feel it should change.

That's been the law of the land for two hundred years. It isn't going to change on this issue overnight. The Court makeup at the highest level still reflects the conservative base that saw them ushered into that prestigious and unlimited term position by the conservative majority that elected the presidents that put them there.

While Obama has managed to add one justice to the bench, it isn't enough to sway the ultimate decision that bench would hand down in a same-sex marriage case. So it is all a mute point to talk about "human rights" in regards to same-sex marriage in the year of 2012.

And it is unrealistic to assume the justices will "strike down" any same-sex marriage ban by a state in 2012, too.

AS of 2012, the majority of citizens feel it is constitutional to ban same-sex marriage and to uphold traditional marriage. If it were not so, you wouldn't be posting the comments championing for it to be changed.

That's where you're wrong Lora. I know some who did. But they won't now.

And it is so cruel that he would promote a lifestyle choice that already favors the death of black men over white men, too, J. Wright.

Here, Lora, I can't stand for someone to be this uninformed on such a crucial issue. I put the links below for you.
First link is the staggering new data out this week on black women and HIV
http://www.11alive.com/news/article/240913/40/HIV-crisis-facing-black-women-in-metro-Atlanta
Second link is the Center for Disease Control's data that shows black men have a 6 1/2 times greater risk for getting HIV than the white man.

No, Lora, here's the CDC: Fast Facts

African Americans are the racial/ethnic group most affected by HIV.
In 2009, African Americans comprised 14% of the US population but accounted for 44% of all new HIV infections.
Young African American gay and bisexual men are especially at risk of HIV infection.

Lora, If one of those men has HIV that can be a death sentence for both, so how does getting married stop that?

Caring that people don't get HIV and die is far from being racist or bigoted, Lora. However, Obama making light of such a serious condition to fatten his political wallet his atrocious and an affront to all homosexuals.

But Rory, gay men can choose to be monogamous without a piece of paper to support that choice, as one other poster mentioned elsewhere on a Gather forum. So that isn't necessarily an argument that would hold a lot of water in support of same-sex marriage, since the positive result could be accomplished without being married.

You misquote the president in your headline.

The president did and said the right thing. I applaud President Obama and Vice Presdident Biden for standing up for a group that is too often bullied and not just by candidate Romney.

While I disagree with you Mary Ann, you are entitled to your opinion. And I appreciate you taking the time to read and comment on one of my articles.

Yes, J., I do notice you have the uncanny ability to clear a room. :-)

J must be busy, Rory are think, like me, that you surely jest, as the news out there clearly refutes what you wrote...and did not back up with a link that didn't go to some Democratic blog.

Here's a real fact, and verifiable by a real news agency: More than 1.3 MILLION jobs have been lost in the USA since Obama took office compared to 1.3 MILLION jobs gained during the Bush administration.

Here's the link: http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/340439/20120513/jobs-job-growth-unemployment-presidents-clinton-fdr.htm?page=all
George W. Bush, R-Texas, 2001-2009
First term: +7,000 jobs
Second term: +1.3 million jobs
George W. Bush Total: 1.31 million jobs

Barack Obama, D-Ill., 2009-Present
Partial term: -1.390 million jobs lost through April 2011.
Obama Total to date: -1.390 million jobs lost.

Seems to me that the 14th Amendment has something about "equal protection under the law." I think that's a very important part of what this country's about.

Equal protection is referring to protections against abuses, Nippy.

Yup. Exactly. Couldn't have said it better myself. Glad to see we agree. Denying some people the right to secular/legal marriage on the basis of caprice is exactly one of those situations that clause of the 14th Amendment was designed to deal with.

Most interesting commentary here!
I guess I just don't understand why same-sex couples NEED to be "legally" married. If they are spiritually committed they are as married as any other couple. The paperwork means noting spiritually.
If it's the ownership/contractual part of partnership, a lawyer can draw up paperwork which is perfectly apropos to the situation.
If, on the other hand, they wish to be married just to assert their imagined "right" to do so, I can't agree.
My faith, first of all, forbids it. Secondly, my faith forbids it.
What you do in your own private life is your business. Gay couples don't need my permission nor my blessing.
It's like this: if I decided that I enjoyed walking downtown without benefit of clothing (AND I didn't live in Oregon,) I'd be arrested for engaging in anti-social behavior. Behavior which is frowned upon by the majority even though it is a 'victimless' kind of crime. Am I entitled to pursue that which makes me "feel good" in public when the behavior runs contrary to the belief system of the majority of my neighbors.

A few years back, I made the mistake of booking a cruise on Norwegian Cruise Lines. I found out after we'd set sail that Norwegian actively courts the LGBT market niche. Fortunately for my family, we'd left the children at home, otherwise I'd have had a very hard time explaining some of the overt homosexual behaviors which were on display constantly.

I'm anxious to hear what others have to say about this but, for my part, sexuality is a private thing which should be protected from the eyes of others....regardless of ones orientation.

Excellent points, Vicki. You're right that those in the homosexual community are giving power to others over their lives unnecessarily. But the reason they are butting their heads against the wall wanting to force the public to sanction their version of a "marriage" has to do with their perception that they aren't "normal."

In other words, they think that if they can get the public to acknowledge in legal terms that they are "married" that it will make them married in the eyes of those who feel homosexuality is a deviant lifestyle.

It won't, however, as just getting a piece of paper--regardless of whether the state or federal government says it is a legal document--isn't going to make those who believe it is a sin in God's eyes ever embrace it or sanction it.

So the Supreme Court or any state could make it mandatory for same-sex marriage to be recognized, but it still wouldn't in the eyes and hearts who believe it is a sin that God hates.

Thus even if that type of union were ever approved nationally, the gay community would then turn their efforts toward trying to force the Church of Christ to have to admit it--and marry them--in a religious ceremony, once again claiming a "human right" to do so, even though for years they've pontificated the "separation of church and state' dogma.

So it is a lose-lose deal this same-sex marriage topic. They should do what God gives them the freedom to do and stop trying to emulate traditional marriage. They're not "traditional."

Yup. That's it in a nutshell, Jane.

"those who feel homosexuality is a deviant lifestyle..."

That describes the problem very nicely. I don't think any behavior should be made illegal because some people believe it's part of a "deviant lifestyle." Law is about life, liberty, and property, not whether some people don't like behavior that doesn't harm them in any way.

I find a lot of behavior deviant that I would never want to make illegal. As long as it doesn't harm me, I have a moral obligation to look the other way. To give a trivial example, I think that people who enjoy "American Idol" or "Dancing with the Stars" are either deviants or suffer from a congenital aesthetic abnormality. I'm willing to let it go.

Sad thing, Nippy is that they (not the Star Dancers of the Idol crowd, but those who embrace a homosexual lifestyle) just won't let us look the other way. I'm perfectly happy to do so, but so many of them are on a mission to force the rest of the world to call their behaviors acceptable.

When I was on that cruise two years ago, I honestly felt assaulted by those who were constantly being overly affectionate with each other in public "because they could." It was, I thought, just militant and unnecessary.

Mr. Wright (sic), obviously there is no amendment pertaining to marriage in the Constitution. I guess that means all homosexual and heterosexual marriages are invalid? Nevertheless, the 14th Amendment does a pretty good job of promising life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to everyone:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Jared, The reason the founding fathers didn't have to define marriage all those years ago, then, would appear to be because it wasn't until now, in our lifetime, that anyone ever got confused about the fact that marriage is meant to be one man with one woman.

Jane, the founding fathers lived in a time where interracial marriage was an abomination and women couldn't vote because they obviously had the same opinions as their husbands. Thankfully, Americans got confused on these concepts and amended the constitution to promise life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to everyone.

I'd laugh, Jared, but I actually think you believe that.

This was politically damaging to Pres. Obama. Whether Biden forced his hand or not, he didn't plan to say this now. North Carolina, where the Dems will hold their nominating convention, just banned gay marriage a few days ago. Now some are calling to move the convention, but to be honest, they can't afford to do.

Marriage is a religious institution, and the government should have no part in defining it. All legal marriages are civil contracts between two people, and should be recognized as such, separate from the religious label of marriage. Let people have the same rights conferred in current legal marriages, regardless of gender, and leave it to the Churches, Temples, Mosques, etc...to define "marriage."

Under this secular contact, I think bisexuals have a valid claim to allowing polygamy, because by definition they have the option of having both a male and female partner. I gets complicated, but it basically becomes a 3 person contract. I suppose it would allow for a man to have multiple legal wives...if they all decide it's their "right" to enter into such a contract...

Our court system, Christopher, is already over burdened with so many criminal and business cases that there isn't enough time or resources to address them all. And you think they should add another layer of legal controversies to the mix by sanctioning polygamy?

That opens up a whole new can of controversial worms, as then you have all the societal issues (child custody, property distribution, etc) when the polygamy "marriage" or "contract" dissolves legally. And they would, just like traditionally married couples divorce.

Our country is already reeling from all the fabric-tearing of this current administration (race relations, economic collapse, business failures, government corruption...think GSA's Vegas spending excursion and the Secret Service debacle), so there isn't the time for any more controversy.

But then, I think Obama needed a topic to take over the failed economy focus before this new election. So I'm headed off to get back on that important topic, as this same-sex issue isn't going to be decided this year or next.

Obama's thinking in a nutshell "what America is supposed to be like." NOT, what America IS. There's that CHANGE thing he was talking about. To remake America in HIS image. Damn commie!!

Doesn't EVERY president try to remake America in HIS image? Doesn't every leader, from King to President or Prime Minister, on down to local town mayor try to remake their province into THEIR image?

Of course they do. Corporation CEO's do the same things, as do leaders at every level, of everything.

Well, j. that's an ongoing debate; whether "original intent" is valid in the modern world. At the time of original intent, slavery was common and women weren't allowed to vote.

The reality of Obama's "image" is the fact that he IS a communist.

Ah, there's that "living, breathing constitution" thing that the communist thinker needs.

On this, we agree, j. wright. There does need to be flexibility, but where exactly that line is, is a difficult thing to place with lots of opinions on both sides of it.

Not keeping up with your living bible these days, Lora?

Lora, You have something against George Clooney's photo being used to talk about comments Obama made at George Clooney's house recently in support of homosexuals?

Jane Brown May 16, 2012, 1:18pm EDT
Thanks in advance for taking the time to read this article and posting a comment. Please note that any comments that are abusive to other readers, a personal attack on the writer or contain inflammatory or incorrect data will be deleted.