If Barack Obama is Christian, then...

[Mr Rayon]

If Barack Obama is Christian, then why does he support gay marriage?

 

Maybe you need to be american to understand...unfortunately I am not. So, anyone care to explain...?

[insane_alien]

because marriage is not monopolised by christianity.

 

also, you have a little thing called separation of church and state. the opinions he expresses as president may not be the same as his own personal opinions.

 

of course, he could also be displaying that christian trait that is prized above all others: tolerance.

[zapatos]

If Barack Obama is Christian, then why does he support gay marriage?

 

Maybe you need to be american to understand...unfortunately I am not. So, anyone care to explain...?

Not all Christians are opposed to gay marriage. I recently attended a lesbian marriage held in a church.

 

You also don't need to be an american to understand. Do you belong to any groups? Do you support every position they hold? Are they any laws of your country that you do not support? Any by-laws of your school or fraternity you are opposed to? Did you not like the rules you mom and dad enforced?

 

The only group I am a part of that I support 100% is the group that consists exclusively of me.

[ewmon]

One news show said that he (mis)applied Christ's teaching to "treat others as you treat yourself". However, Biblical and Christian teachings are unambiguous on the sin of homosexuality and that the Golden Rule does not ameliorate this sin.

 

Of course, much to the dismay of some of Obama's detractors, this also means that he's not Muslim either. Not only don't the vast majority of Muslims (much more than Christians) reject/ban same-sex marriage, they also reject/ban homosexuality and bisexuality and marrying outside their religion.

 

I think, in the end, it can be said that Obama is Obama, and that he doesn't fall neatly into any of these categories. I think he said it because he could get away with saying it because he's running against a Mormon, who most Christians see as a (Christian) cult. He was being political.

[Mr Rayon]

 

 

of course, he could also be displaying that christian trait that is prized above all others: tolerance.

 

maybe. or perhaps all christians are just hypocrites deep inside???

[zapatos]

maybe. or perhaps all christians are just hypocrites deep inside???

Perhaps.

 

Or perhaps you are just an ignorant bigot.

 

Two billion of them. One of you. Which scenario do you think is more likely?

[Phi for All]

maybe. or perhaps all christians are just hypocrites deep inside???

Generalizations NEVER work.

[Bill Angel]

of course, he could also be displaying that christian trait that is prized above all others: tolerance.

Fundamentalist Christians believe that we are all sinners in the eyes of God, and the acceptance of the offer of Salvation offered by Jesus garantees entry and eternity in paradise for anyone who believes in Him. How one had conducted one's life "morally" does not enter into the issue. That said, I think that gays desire a level of social acceptance by straight Christians beyond having them holding their noses while assuring them (gays) that Jesus loves them and will take care of them in paradise.

[swansont]

If Barack Obama is Christian, then why does he support gay marriage?

 

Maybe you need to be american to understand...unfortunately I am not. So, anyone care to explain...?

 

Why not? The president takes an oath to defend the Constitution, not the Bible.

[Janus]

maybe. or perhaps all christians are just hypocrites deep inside???

 

How so? A Christian is some who professes to following the teachings of Christ. So all we have to do is see what Christ had to say on the subject of homosexuality, which is nothing.

[ydoaPs]

One news show said that he (mis)applied Christ's teaching to "treat others as you treat yourself". However, Biblical and Christian teachings are unambiguous on the sin of homosexuality and that the Golden Rule does not ameliorate this sin.

 

Of course, much to the dismay of some of Obama's detractors, this also means that he's not Muslim either. Not only don't the vast majority of Muslims (much more than Christians) reject/ban same-sex marriage, they also reject/ban homosexuality and bisexuality and marrying outside their religion.

 

Unambiguous? Oh, please show me one place where the Bible talks about homosexual love instead of homosexual sex.

[ewmon]

Fundamentalist Christians believe that we are all sinners in the eyes of God, and the acceptance of the offer of Salvation offered by Jesus garantees entry and eternity in paradise for anyone who believes in Him. How one had conducted one's life "morally" does not enter into the issue.

The ultimate effect of religion and philosophy is behavior control (and not a reward in heaven etc, which is only the carrot). Being a fundamentalist Christian, I know that we believe that non-believers are sinners but believers have the "true" choice of not sinning, and a so-called "believer" who continues to sin repeatedly, consistently, habitually and/or as a lifestyle is not a believer, but a hypocrite. People who have read the Bible know that those who only "talk the talk" and can't "walk the walk" aren't believers. Evidence the phony televangelists like Jim Bakker. Does moral conduct enter into the issue? Do you really want me to invoke Godwin's law?

 

Unambiguous? Oh, please show me one place where the Bible talks about homosexual love instead of homosexual sex.

Christ quoted in Matthew 5:21-22 (below) is quite broadly, almost universally, held by Christians to apply to all (physical) sin. That is, whatever feeling or thought that causes a sinful action is also sin. That's why lusting after someone not your spouse is a sin. That's what the 10th Commandment is all about — coveting (ie, desiring) things that aren't yours.

 

You have heard that it was said to those of old, "You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment." But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment

So there you have from both the Old and New Testaments.

 

And by "homosexual love", I'm sure you do not mean, for example, the close, same-gender, homosocial "romantic friendships" common and unremarkable in the West until the end of the 19th Century as evidenced between Abraham Lincoln and Joshua Speed. Nowadays we might call them "bromances" or "man-crushes".

 

After I became a Christian, I shared close, long-term living arrangements (even sleeping arrangements) with several other men (none of whom were Christian), including three homosexuals (one of whom made a pass at me). Of those men, two of them are like brothers to me: one is straight (and curses like a sailor), and the other gay. I would gladly, and without a second thought, go the extra mile for either of them.

 

Last but not least, let me quote Ephesians 6:12, which is very well known among Christians:

 

For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.

So, let me reiterate probably the Christian principle that should be of the most relevant concern for non-believers:

 

For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but ... against the spiritual forces of evil

In other words, we don't hate sinners or wish them ill (as it would be a sin for us to do so). Our struggle is against spiritual forces of evil, and we must, and do, label as "sin" that which is sinful, whether it is deeds, words, thoughts or feelings.

[ydoaPs]

I'll let you in on a hint: lust and love aren't synonyms. Got anything else?

[ewmon]

I'll let you in on a hint: lust and love aren't synonyms. Got anything else?

Okay, so you're saying that "homosexual love" is not "homosexual lust", but you also seem to be saying that it's not "romantic friendships", "bromance" or "man-crush" (because I already offered those to you).

 

Well, you got me, you are in an area that I don't recognize as generally known. I can only guess at perhaps "homosexual courtly love" or "homosexual limerence" or "homosexual compersion", but I think I'm wrong on all three.

 

So, let's look at a dictionary's definition of love.

 

love

n.

1. a deep and tender feeling of affection for or attachment or devotion to a person or persons

2. an expression of one's love or affection [give Mary my love]

3. a feeling of brotherhood and good will toward other people

4.

a) strong liking for or interest in something [a love of music]

b) the object of such liking

5.

a) a strong, usually passionate, affection of one person for another, based in part on sexual attraction

b) the person who is the object of such an affection; sweetheart; lover

6.

a) sexual passion

b) sexual intercourse

7. Tennis a score of zero

8. Theology

a) God's tender regard and concern for all human beings

b) devotion to and desire for God as the supreme good, that all human beings have

9. Mythology

a) Cupid, or Eros, as the god of love

b) Rare Venus

 

I mistook your expression "homosexual love" to be love in the sense of #5a and/or 6a. But now you seem to say that's not what you meant. The only other meaning here that seems to fit is in the sense #1 a deep and tender feeling of affection for or attachment or devotion to a person or persons. However, this is a very generic/basic sense of "love", and I don't see how "homosexual" qualifies it in any way. For example, as you use the word "love" here, how does your "homosexual love" differ from "love" in the sense of #1 as shown above.

[ydoaPs]

However, this is a very generic/basic sense of "love", and I don't see how "homosexual" qualifies it in any way. For example, as you use the word "love" here, how does your "homosexual love" differ from "love" in the sense of #1 as shown above.

 

Exactly. Gay people don't gay park their cars; they park them. They don't gay walk their dogs; they walk them. They don't gay love; they love. The qualifier only comes into play when there are bigots getting in the way.

[ewmon]

Then what do you mean by "homosexual love"?

[A Tripolation]

Then what do you mean by "homosexual love"?

 

The love that a man has for another man in a romantic context. It's two words. Not that hard.

[iNow]

Does it need the adjective "homosexual," though? That really adds nothing, and seems there for little more than an attempt to keep "them" separate.

 

Add the word "agape," or the word "romantic," or the words "profound," "deep," "passionate," "unconditional," or even "life-altering" to describe the nature of the love... But calling it "homosexual" love is to consider it somehow differently than love between people with different sexual organs. It's not different, though, and as ydoaps right shared above, it seems only to come up when bigotry is involved.

[doG]

maybe. or perhaps all christians are just hypocrites deep inside???

Maybe? Or did you just misspell 'likely'?

[A Tripolation]

It's not different, though, and as ydoaps right shared above, it seems only to come up when bigotry is involved.

 

Exactly. Even from a Christian perspective, it is perplexing to imagine that our God would disapprove of the only pure and good human emotion.

[Mr Rayon]

Of course, much to the dismay of some of Obama's detractors, this also means that he's not Muslim either. Not only don't the vast majority of Muslims (much more than Christians) reject/ban same-sex marriage, they also reject/ban homosexuality and bisexuality and marrying outside their religion.

 

Are you sure about that? I heard that in Islam being a homosexual is not a sin (unlike in Christianity) but it's rather just the act of performing sodomy that's sinful. You don't have to be a homosexual to perform sodomy, so they're not necessarily anti-homosexual either. For example if a guy gets the urge to rape his little brother but refrains, then he has committed no sin as no action was committed.

Edited May 21, 2012 by Mr Rayon

[swansont]

Religious arguments are beside the point, IMO, though I would be interested to know why there is such an emphasis on homosexuality while shellfish get a free pass, along with other "abominations" mentioned in Leviticus. Anyone wearing clothing made of mixed threads? Anyone get a haircut recently?

 

The president of the US is supposed to be the president of all the people. He takes an oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution". Ideally, this means even if in some case it conflicts with some personal belief, and adopts the position that even if I disagree with what you say, I am going to support your right to free speech. Even if I don't follow your religion, I am going to agree you have the right to do so. So I don't see an issue with a president who might have a religious conflict (which isn't settled) but has opted to fulfill his oath of office. What is a problem is a president who only thinks that he has a duty only to the people that voted for him.

[ewmon]

The love that a man has for another man in a romantic context. It's two words. Not that hard.

This sounds exactly like the homosocial "romantic friendship" that I mentioned earlier.

 

Does it need the adjective "homosexual," though? That really adds nothing, and seems there for little more than an attempt to keep "them" separate. ...

 

But calling it "homosexual" love is to consider it somehow differently than love between people with different sexual organs. It's not different, though, and as ydoaps right shared above, it seems only to come up when bigotry is involved.

Okay, so what is "homosexual love" really, and how does it "come up" when bigotry is involved? Or are we obliquely hinting at homosexual solidarity in the presence of someone who disagrees with homosexuality? In that case, then it's based, in part, on latent sexual attraction — homosexual lust — lying dormant under the homosexual's special definition of one person's platonic love for another.

 

If gay people don't "gay park their cars" (ydoaPs's own words), then why talk about "gay parking" where "gay" is meaningless except in the presence of someone who does not accept homosexual lust.

[ydoaPs]

This sounds exactly like the homosocial "romantic friendship" that I mentioned earlier.

 

 

Okay, so what is "homosexual love" really, and how does it "come up" when bigotry is involved? Or are we obliquely hinting at homosexual solidarity in the presence of someone who disagrees with homosexuality? In that case, then it's based, in part, on latent sexual attraction — homosexual lust — lying dormant under the homosexual's special definition of one person's platonic love for another.

 

If gay people don't "gay park their cars" (ydoaPs's own words), then why talk about "gay parking" where "gay" is meaningless except in the presence of someone who does not accept homosexual lust.

 

If you can't tell the difference between a "bromance" and actual romantic love, then you're beyond hope. Hopefully one day you'll find love.

[ewmon]

If you can't tell the difference between a "bromance" and actual romantic love, then you're beyond hope. Hopefully one day you'll find love.

However, I'm still waiting for an answer on what you called "homosexual love" and how it differs from generic, platonic love.