Is Obama Having It Both Ways on Gay Marriage?

Reader Comments
Back to blog

I can tell you truth of bible with a dictonary.Take word for word and compare.ya is na na is ya thus Old Testament is Same yet Opposite New Testament.Old, New. alpha omega. Same testament , Opposite testoment. Old way,new way. Ya is Na Na is Ya. But still Both True. God the father, God the Son. opposite but true. Alpha Omega, Opposites still True. All True to words of man thus dictionary,Gods words scripture, Truth. To be Born again. Blind but See..Opposite but true.Take this and use dictionary word for word of Bible tells all truth. Gods Thuth, Mans Truths opposite yet the same? ya is na and na it ya. In time, all belief change? Jesus said to slave?Racism- Hitler,Freedom of religion- U.S.,Slavery -Human Rights,alcohol- prohibition,Pot- medical,Gay- marriage what do they all have in common? All worlds lessons to accept which you dont understand?Now if you add only God,and read the bible?Dictates two ways? All, are to make choice equal and even man to
man?Thue love! I tell you this because.Bible says, A stone to be broken,or to fall on us and grind,crush us.MAT. A we need to know and forget all past of old testament.Leave our Sodom and Gomora.Differant laws.Same Meaning yet not the same.I know I lost you.The old testament.Seriously confuses you.For all truth is in Jesus Every bit of his life his actions, his love ,caring like children. Listen you know or do you.Jesus "OUR FATHER"died on cross for his human nature or sin.We know it yet we not see it. A stone to trip on to teach us Judgements.We do with every thought to justify.Stone to be broken is Accetpt withwout predjudice or true love,Grind is Hate.Eats your love or to be pedjudice.Think alpha omega?Opposites meaning.Justify with YOUR word as you you think it means(Ya is na)IN THE BIBLE. Is this not Judgement!? (think opposite). Why not if so? Did Jesus use scripture to justify? you dont know read Mathew. PARABLE! Why?!!! TO NOT OFFEND MAN or
(judge)THUS JESUS TOTAL EXAMPLE OF HIS LIFE NOT LAW OF LAND?yA IS NA.hE SAID,tO BE A GOOD SLAVE!fOLLOW LAW OF LAND(THINK OPPOSITE)HUMAN RIGHTS SUPOSED TO BE.na is ya Do you use scripture to Justify? Did Jesus?In law crimes are justified by Law to be fair and equal? All are to show us our faults or Judgements. of wrong belief to new belief.NA IS YA. Love is EQUAL! Not justified period!!!Did Jesus did judge MAN ONCE!!!!!not even to DEATH? BIRTH DEATH,YA,NA ALPHA OMEGA.RIGHT WRONG. Are you catching on yet. Use of parable to not judge. Gave answer to not offend.Yet Truth.?? Asked if he was KING of the Jews.FISHERMAN OF MEN. (Opposite)Answered with Qestion and thus answer.OPPOSITS All ways opposite meaning except,10 Comandments, Two most important Commandment LOVE thy GOD and second LOVE one another UNCONDITIONALLY.So hard? Not, if you see your Judgements! Blinded by society belief or to be politically correct FOR THAT TIME!Opposite NOW? Marriage? Meant to
be? Must be? Your say the same? Read your dictionary! TRUTH!!Human nature to justify all things we know or belief.(ya is na) Human nature is reason for Jesus! OPPOSITE OF HOLLY,HUMAN.opposite.You like something you decided by justification.Your belief?your human dont know truth. God Holy knowing truth.Opposite. All stones of life. If you BELIEVE IN GOD your saved. Judgement is comming.How many times a day you Judge something? Now how many times man? without thought? NO Human nature is why God gave us Jesus. New testament is new omega. Beginning of the end. Likeness of God? AGAIN same and yet opposite.ALPHA OMEGA.God's Form, Human or human natured.MAN,GOD opposite,night and day black and white. Jesus likeness of man.opposite Jesus is GOD. SON, FATHER,APHA OMEGA GOD 1ST TESTAMENT JESUS 2ND TESTAMENT.ALPHA OMEGA FATHER OPPOSITE OF SON YA IS NA NA IS YA (are you blind or do you see)YA IS NA NA IS YA.DO I NEED GO ON.ARE YOU LOST OR FOUND?YA NA.SUN MOON LIGHT
DARK. AWAKE SLEEP GOOD AND BAD. CHRISTIAN NONBELIEVER? YOU HOT OR COLD? With human nature.Did he get tempted by satan? yes Did he pray before death? yes.FOR LOVE TO SHOW EXAMPLE TO ALL MAN FOR ALL MAN TO DO. WITHOUT JUSTIFYING ANY THING PERIOD. All part of human nature to judge and justify or decide one way or other . Choice is yours?OPPOSITE OF CHOICE SLAVERY,ALPHA OMEGA. Gay Marriage?NA IS YA. POT NA YA. A stone ,to TRIP OVER,opposite? To Fall on.opposit.If we deny Gay marriage we judge.na is ya there is your true answer to Gay Marriage.Why.old and new,dead, alive,We know its going to pass.FOR REASON. Are we just justifying what society dictates to us? Reason of God.s Plan.WE THINK WE KNOW OF THOGHT WE KNEW. alpha omega. Our predjudice or hate same.God dictated the word for that time. Reason or plan.Beliefs,Belief change with society ? Time will let you see.If you hear yourself.To say someone is stupid? Justify, even by test, is Judgement of brain?
Could it hurt someone or be held negative to person? Judgement put on us by Human nature dictating society of the world at that time. Reason Plan! Jesus did not justify man by scripture can you without word of scripture. Slavery not to long ago was wrong.Did belief change? Why To make EQUAL. Love you unconditionally!!! Are you blinded by sociey? If you justified with scripture your are blind to TRUE LOVE. If you can get past your Human Nature. If you use anything to judge another person not matter how or what is not equal and
thus offends is JUDGEMENT. How many Lessons do man need??? Use of Bible to Judge is judgement justified in your own Mind.Love 2nd Commandment or second most Important.Stones we accept and just struggle or stone you grind and crush you Hate.Prdjudice and dont see it is just Human nature blocking your thuth.If you can understant than Whole new meaning. Gay Marriage? stone, Pot a Stone, Not many stones left? Money,Religion,Communism. Stones left before end of time THE OMEGA. New Testament is Alpha Omega.Begginning of the end. Open your eyes!This is to prepare you for end.Rev. It is okay to be Gay.If you say not your still blinded. Time not for you or since your saved as by Faith alone.Sins are our spankings from our Father.Stones to open our eyes and remove our Judgements.To see level with you. Marriage Meant to be between? Sin is Full of Lust without altar there for Salt!Jesus new law for us gentiles. Dont judge religion for it is same as
Slavery,prohibition,Human Rights,Pot,Gay you judge them all if you see wrong you do the same to person attached to it. Gay people will have an easier time of uderstanding for they are be Judged. Not by God by Gods word I know and most have still have to learn. My reson is now clear to wake up this world. You think im nutz you might know you just judged me and thus sin against me. You might want to ask forgiveness not from me. GOD! I dont judge no man For the most part.I am Human. Can this seed grow or just rott.time will tell.If you get it. Its sprouted. Love all man EQUAL not matter what or you might pay latter.Judgement day is Near.

Rev.Parker 3 of CA 10:59PM January 27, 2010

aura dawn veirs wants proper useage of her name, yet she mispells my user name. I answer to my user name and my real name easily and am greatly insulted by having either mispelled. If she wants to go off topics about decency, let her lead by example.
The sources that have been "belittled" were one and only one, namely Wikipedia. I do not consider Wikipedia evil, but I do not consider it credible in a debate because even high school teachers prohibit their students from using it as a source. Why? Because anyone can add to the entries made, and who's to say what is mentioned is true or false. I have asked and still wait for other sources to be named that support her arguments. However, she would rather belittle me and my beliefs than to support her own claims.
The texts in question about Jonathan and David do not suggest that the two were gay. As for Christ's relations, one must understand aura dawn veirs biblical illiteracy. I and II Samuel were written well before the time of Christ. The Old Testament writers were not afraid to point out the sins of their prestigious rulers or heroes. Moses is seen killing in Egyptian out of anger. Noah got drunk. Adam went with his wife Eve and helped bring about the condemnation of the whole human race. Abraham didn't always trust God. David is most remembered for adultery. So why would the writers be so hush-hush about David's sin of homosexuality? There is no reason. A closer look at the actual texts concerning Jonathan and David will prove that they did not fall in love. They were more like brothers, maybe closer. However, nothing suggests homosexuality.
As for "dragging god" into discussions, Christianity is my religion and worldview. To not to bring God in would be to deny who I am. A Nihilist could not have a discussion without in some way allowing his beliefs influence what he/she does. The same goes for postmodernists, New Agers, wiccans, mormons, Muslims, etc. If we must discuss going off topic, then anyone who has read aura dawn veir's posts he/she will see that she does her own "going off topics" by attacking the Church. Her claims stretch the truth to an extreme and are incredible. One would merely need to think her claims out for a few seconds and realize that her arguments are based on a few nominal Christians, not those who truly obey the Word.
She uses the fallacy of ad hominem, which basically means she tries to promote her argument by attacking me. I am not homophobic. I disagree with the lifestyles of homosexuality and believe them to be sinful. I am not afraid of abortions. I find it to be murder far worse than what the KKK did to blacks or what Hitler did to those who did not meet his super race's qualifications.

Dryfire of IL 11:03PM October 17, 2009

I have read up on the ancient holy book The Balenyata and how it had articulated social justice more advanced then our sense of social justice today. I found it interesting the comment about the Balenyata by Dr. Jeannie Kelly, New Jersey professor of Mamalestian Studies. "Why are we still struggling with discrimination disguised in the name of religion? " The Balenyata,set in a culture over three thousand years ago, warned exactly what is going on today. Discrimination is discrimination no matter what, specifically here, lack of marriage equality. Organized religion, if promoting discrimination against what they see as "unaccetpable" living,and justifying this action by the word of God,runs the risk of turning off followers. Enlightened followers, more independent minded thinkers and agnostics, all people that many mainstream Christian churches want to reach, may very well find the "love and social Justice" they preach as hypocritical(if it is not applied to everyone, especially those who we do not agree with).. The Balenyata; thus, could serve as a guideline in preventing hypocracy, moral duplicity and vacuous invective that are commonplace many idealogue denomenations. Thus, Jeannie Kelly says the Balenyata can very well enhance social justice and protect the rights of all minorities (racial, sexual orientation, ethnic, political, etc.). Thus, while being a document written over 3.000 years ago, The Balenyata may well serve contemporary society where our "modern philosophies" are woefully inadequate.

Roberta of FL 3:24AM October 17, 2009

To identify commentators whose arguments are being debated, most people must include a name to identify the "opponent or person with whom we agree." It's improper, impolite and shows lack of social graces when Drf uses my first name in his comments-- as if he knows me. He belittles sources other than his own. There are several Scriptural references to homosexuals David & Jonathan. He either can't understand what they say or his reverence for David, an ancestor of his precious Christ, makes it impossible for him to ever admit what the texts say.
Drf himself "drags god" into all his comments, which always throws him off topic. I make the effort to relieve homophobes of their compulsions, because they cause so much suffering. But the problem needs attention from professionals who are paid for consultations. I'm not a psychiatrist. Since Obama was elected, commentators who suffer from two kinds of phobias enter comment sites. One kind is phobic about homosexuality and the other is phobic about trying to force the world population to never use abortion. Both phobias have roots in religiosity..which seems to be an incurable condition.

auradawn veirs of CA 5:13PM October 16, 2009

This whole concept of "seperate but equal" and "different status" is not based on the majority of people believing same sex couples are equal but they just do not want to have them afforded religious recogntion(or have forced religious recogniciont), like Dan Gilgoff states. His assertion is erronous and is not factually sound. Such justifications for second class status has been historically chronicaled in the ancient holy text the Balenyata.
First, If indeed civil unions were legally equal to marriages, there would be no problem. But they are not. The same people who state they are, then go around when confronted with a CU, and they say they don't recognize it because it is not marriage. We have this situation in New Jersey,where insurance companies are rejecting coverage because of "the wording is not marriage". This, despite the NJ law supposedly being equal in every way but in name. The Balenyata warns of bigotry and inferior relegation being caught up in semantics. I suggest Mr Gilgoff do his homeworkk here.
Second, calling something different because the majority does not want to call the relationship the same thing they call their relationships, is in definition, affording second class citizenship. This is a violation of equal protection of the law.
Third, Gilgoff's assertion that affording marriage means affording religious significance is erronous. Are all heterosexual marriages religious? Are not heterosexuals married civilly. This is exactly what gays and lesbians want.
The Balenyata discribes in general the social justice significance of affording same and equal protection, not different or seperate and equal. Dr. Jeannie Kelly, Mamalestian American professor of comparative religions, states that the Balenyata warns against the majority basing superiority on religous beleifs. Kelly states that the Balenyata warns that religions run the risk of being seen as hypocritical by some. Therefore, religous motivation to discriminate (not just what affects them) but to deny rights outright smacks of bigotry. These actions are even more perplexing when religion is a supposed source of social justice. And it is because of the name of religion, that this second class regulation is motivated from. I would really like Mr. Gigloff deal with that topic.

Hector of FL 1:57PM October 16, 2009

The problem with civil unions is that they don't exist and would have to be specially created for gay people, even if the plan were that all existing marriages would become civil unions and in the future everyone would get a civil union.
While we were waiting for civil unions to be created, opposite-sex couples could still get married. There would be no urgency to create civil unions. I can only imagine how much foot dragging Congress would engage in, not to mention state legislatures.
So let's have an agreement. No more marriages from here on. The clerks' offices are closed. No one is getting state recognition of their unions until the government actually addresses this in a fashion that does not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. Treat every couple as legal strangers. That might give things some urgency.
If we're going to treat "relationships between two men or two women as just as real and admirable as relationships between a man and a woman," then they have to be treated the same.
We can't create something just for same-sex couples and be honest about it being just as "real and admirable," so everyone has to get the same.
We can expend our time on creating a whole new set of laws to cover a newly-named recognition of relationships.
Or we can stop giving in to bigots. My relationship with my husband is not recognized by the government. Why? Bigotry. I invite opposite-sex couples to try this. You won't like it.
There is only one solution here and it is called marriage equality.

John of CA 2:35AM October 16, 2009

Okay, of course civil unions which involve equal rights/privileges makes real world sense; especially if we bother to pause and compare civil unions with invisibility and silence, or with outright social prejudice and some sort of state force sanctioning discrimination against same sex couples. Problems?
Well. For one thing, the folks arguing against gay marriage clearly do not wish to have any sort of legal or social status accorded to such couples. The anti-campaigners are not just against calling it marriage, but against having any law or regulation or just social mores that weigh against them getting to decide just how loud they will use their negative beliefs about gay folks to explain or justify whatever mistreatment somebody might decide to actually carry out in any given circumstances. At the very least, this comes across as sadistic - designed to maintain legal or social privileges to make any sort of call one happens to wish to make in a given instance, varying from a sudden passing restraint to an agressive-angry-punitive legal or social negative sanction.
For a second thing, the arguments now used against gay marriage actually mainly depend on all of us believing that gay folks are dangerous, individually, let alone in long-term committed couples. All that is nasty business. Nonsense. Except to the citizens who still think ... well, maybe ...
The campaign against equal marriage is just the latest round of the antigay political, legal, social - and yes, religious - business that has stood unquestioned for decades. If not for centuries, especially in some cultures.
Even when this antigay stuff wins, we still lose. It demeans the gay folks targeted as outside of law or social equality. It repeats really trashy falsehoods that are supposed to be the real-hidden truths about the people who are supposed to be afraid, silent, invisible, and dependent.
Can't quite do a free and happy jig, then, to all this nasty stuff.

drdanfee of CA 2:22AM October 16, 2009

We should have learned that seperate but equal is anything but. We should also not allow the rights of the minority to be subject to the tyranny of the majority. Women did not gain the right to vote by popular vote. Interracial marriage was not a proposition that the populous voted upon.
The President is taking a safe ground by supporting civil unions over same sex marriage. It is also great to say let states decide, but how are we going to say you are married in MA, CT, VT, NH, IA or elsewhere (as I am in CA) but you are not recognized or otherwise civil unioned in the eyes of the US Government? What does that mean? How does it differ, if at all? How are people to interpret it? Does Hallmark have to start a whole other section of cards? Are people going to wish you a Happy Civil Union Anniversary?
One way to remedy the problem would be to deny marriage licenses to all. We can all get a civil union license and your place of worship can sanctify a marriage. But, I imagine this isn't acceptable to either side. Besides, why if a religion wish to hold a wedding ceremony should it be denied? Isn't that a violation of the separation of church and state?

Robert StGenis of LA of CA 12:38AM October 16, 2009

Certainly if god exists, he will take the sins of abuse, degradation, dehumanization, rape, torture and murder of HIS gay creations FAR more seriously than he will take the genitalia of another's beloved.
The world spins in one direction, brother. And that is FORWARD. And it certainly will not hesitate to pass you by. In fact, it already has.
Mostly I feel sad for you. That you would use your god so immorally to justify your bigotry.
Good luck with that.

Bill of CA 10:55PM October 15, 2009

There's a couple in Louisiana that recently was denied a marriage license because the judge didn't believe in different races mixing. It's not good for the children, he says. Since this type of marriage contradicts certain people's beliefs as well, should we ask the same question about whether this interracial couple should settle with getting a civil union or domestic partnership instead?

Andrew of LA 8:55PM October 15, 2009