President okay with Gay Marriage, decides not to seek 2nd term actively

I have to tell you that over the course of several years as I have talked to friends and family and neighbors when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together, when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married.

via BREAKING: Obama Embraces Marriage Equality | ThinkProgress.

You Might Also Like

21 Replies to “President okay with Gay Marriage, decides not to seek 2nd term actively”

  1. The announcement has been a long time coming. As for re-election, I am in West Virginia. He was never, never, never, ever going to win here. In fact, if you have not heard or read, the President had 40% vote for a felon in prison simply because he was running against the President. So for many, this only confirms what they had so long suspected of him: that he is not worthy to be President because he wants…..whatever it is they do not.

  2. He did not destroy his chances of re-election. He firmed up his chances. Why he hemmed and hawed this long only shows he’s a politician. It’s ridiculous to think he was not going to come out for gay marriage. He knows his base.

        1. well, since it comes down to those two words, and we know what it is…. tell me, where else can we find those words and what do they mean in context?

          Let’s not throw one verse here or there and assume that it is unquestionable doctrine.

          1. I didn’t offer up the verse. You offered to exegete what those words mean. I’m just waiting for the explanation is all.

  3. Out of the list in 1 Cor. 6, why do people pull out homosexual practice as “okay” and leave the others in? I was in a seminary class where the instructor clearly believed that blessing same sex marriages was okay, but she was honest enough to say Scripture did not agree with her position. The community had to step outside the Scripture to be able to rise above and bless same sex marriages.

    For me, and I’m trying to write this respectfully, so I would appreciate the same courtesy, I know same sex marriage is a done deal in society. I get that. But when it comes to the Church, please don’t ask me to bless same sex marriages. I say that in a forum like this and I understand the risk I take. Call me “biblicist” or other nice pejorative terms.

    Culture is one thing. Church is another. Why would I pull homosexual practice out of that list and leave the others? Why not bless someone who is a serial adulterer as well? Why not just bless thieves and gossips? For me, I would have to completely disagree with Scripture and just say, “Paul, you’re full of hot air.” (And that would refer to his letter to Timothy as well. Not just this passage.)

    Okay, I put it out there. I am trying to be respectful.

    1. Dan, you haven’t yet proved that those words mean what you say they mean. Let’s talk about those words first. You have to admit that they aren’t in Scripture. That means we have to look at other sources.

      can you show me what lexicon you are using to define those words like you say they mean?

        1. Why are you sighing? I thought this was a discussion to get to the root of the meaning of those words. Surely, as someone who believes in Scripture, this is the preferred method, right?

          We cannot find those words in Scripture (including the LXX). Indeed, the closest use of those words are in Josephus (effeminate) and in the Oracles (‘homosexual’). Josephus, who has other ways of describing homosexuality, uses effeminate to describe men who do not want to fight because they would rather stay at home and make babies. In the Oracles, the closest use of the word which only the KJV seems to get right, means those who abuse little boys via rape. We know that pederasty was common in Roman and Greek culture and that Jesus had railed against it in the Gospels.

          Okay, so now I’ve showed you mine, show me yours. Where do you get the lexical prowess to suggest that those words have any relation to homosexuality, especially when at least one of those words were used to describe the Jews who didn’t want to fight Rome but stay home with their wives?

    1. Dan, I don’t know what you think I mean. You seem to be a bit touchy on this issue, no pun intended. I said the exact opposite of what you think I said. I said that I don’t think you do anything by one verse. I’m not sure how you could not have gotten that. I was paying a compliment in saying that you base your theology on all of Scripture, not on one verse taken out of context.

  4. Sorry, I meant 1 Cor 6:9. The word μαλακὀς (which has its modern counterpart in the Greek swear word “Malaka”), says in Thayer’s (a catamite (boy toy), boy kept for homosexual relations with a man, etc), Louw-Nida says a homosexual, and Perseus says “in a bad sense, effeminate”. I’m on a Mac now so I don’t have access to my BDAG.

Leave a Reply, Please!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.