Wednesday, May 09, 2012

Obama 'comes to believe' same sex marriage is good for the nation.



He is quite evolved, you know.

President Obama today announced that he now supports same-sex marriage, reversing his longstanding opposition amid growing pressure from the Democratic base and even his own vice president.

In an interview with ABC News’ Robin Roberts, the president described his thought process as an “evolution” that led him to this place, based on conversations with his own staff members, openly gay and lesbian service members, and conversations with his wife and own daughters.

"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,” Obama told Roberts, in an interview to appear on ABC’s “Good Morning America” Thursday. Excerpts of the interview will air tonight on ABC’s “World News with Diane Sawyer.” - Source

"The president stressed that this is a personal position, and that he still supports the concept of states deciding the issue on their own..."

North Carolina just did that yesterday:
RALEIGH -- North Carolina has become the 31st state to add an amendment on marriage to its constitution, with voters banning same-sex marriage and barring legal recognition of unmarried couples by state and local governments.
The North Carolina vote is encouraging.  Minnesota votes on the same amendment issue in November.

The Obama rationalization is the new equality bandwagon - in fact it's coming pretty close to saying, "We don't want gay couples to have to live in sin - if they can get married, everything will be fine."  Which in reality means that 'gay is normal' and must be accepted as such.  The very first mistake is to consider same sex romance/relationships/partnerships as being equal to heterosexual romance/relationships/partnerships - or same sex cohabitation as the same thing as opposite sex cohabitation.  They are similar, but they are not the same.  Pretending they are the same is the why and wherefore in the growing acceptance of same sex marriage.  Homosexual acts never rise above the level of mutual masturbation, they are impotent parodies of the conjugal act, incapable of reproduction - which is precisely why they are gravely disordered.

Obama and the supporters of same sex marriage remain snared in a diabolical delusion.

Art source.

18 comments:

  1. You know this changes nothing right? Those who oppose Obama have never thought for a second that the man was against gay marriage, but that his position was simply a smokescreen for the ignorant rednecks outside of his elitist circles. I seriously doubt there was anyone supporting him who's like "whoa! just wait a minute, now that's too much!"

    Your last point is important. I have gay friends who are not chaste, just as I have straight friends who cohabit or fornicate or whatever. I know people who are divorced an remarried illicitly.

    The difference is that in the case of fornicating couples, friends, families, even a priest, can encourage them to go to confession and to get married if they really love one another. The circumstance (not being married) is what makes the acts sinful. Even for divorced and remarried people it's the *circumstances* that make it sinful - they could marry if they weren't already married.

    Sadly, for gay folks, none of this is an option, which is why while it's true that there are lots of ways to sin gravely when it comes to sexual behavior, gay sex is especially off the mark. You can't say "Well, if only you weren't two dudes ..." Know what I mean?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I do know what you mean.

      I also agree the Obama announcement is no surprise.

      Delete
    2. Oh, and it goes without saying - IF Obama is allowed another term, and IF he is allowed to add more of his people to the court, we WILL have same sex marriage in every state. That is the main goal here - if federal judges can say gay marriage is supported in the Constitution, it is over.

      Also, no one should be deceived. churches will be forced to acknowledge this crap or recede from public life. The state of Washington has laws going on the books that says Churches must allow same-sex marriages on the premises if they serve ANY function whatsoever beyond mere religious services - that means schools, social services, bake sales, etc.

      Disobedience is in order. The law can say whatever the hell it wants - it's not a marriage.

      I have also heard NO argument for gay marriage that cannot equally be used to support polygamy / polyandry, and I wonder if someone who believe sin gay marriage can give me one? Cause I don't think such an argument exists.

      Delete
  2. the following quote is from the website of a guest speaker who came to a Women's Retreat last year. The retreat house is on properties own by sisters associated with LCWR .... he came to talk about his 'new' book, The Globalisation of God: Celtic Christianity's Nemesis

    An excerpt from one of his posted essays:

    Dara Molloy

    Homosexual relationships is an issue that won't go away. Societies have to deal with it and churches have to deal with it, whether they like it or not. This article looks at the theological and cultural roots of the problem and finds their source in monotheism.

    I am in favour of same-sex marriages and, as a Celtic priest, I have performed such a marriage ceremony myself. I am not homosexual, although I believe that there may be an element of homosexuality in each of us. As Robert Johnson puts it: "All people have the native capacity for homoerotic relationships". I have never had a homoerotic relationship. Perhaps I would be a more whole person if I had had. However, the culture in which I grew up would not have condoned such a relationship. ...

    Therefore, there are two ways of approaching the issues surrounding gay marriage. One approach is to work from within this model of a uniform global culture in order to broaden out its sexual parameters, so that there is room for at least some diversity within the area of sexual behaviour and marital practice.

    The other approach is to work against this all-encompassing global model of culture and to enable the rebuilding of locally rooted, indigenous cultures that bring diversity back into cultural expression.

    Clearly, I am on the side of indigenous cultures and against globalisation...

    The task of this and future generations is twofold. In the short-term, the task is to make space for homosexual relationships and gay marriages within our monotheistic no-sex society. I was a guest in the house of a church-going family recently where the sister of the host was also invited. She brought with her her lesbian partner. ... They were given a room to sleep in with a double bed. Their relationship was honoured and respected.

    This lesbian sister of the host had begun her life as a Benedictine nun, she had then married and reared three children and now she lived with her lesbian partner.

    This is what must happen at a societal level. Churches need to encourage committed long-term same-sex relationships even if only to discourage anonymous and unsafe sex. The State needs to facilitate the normalisation of same-sex couples within our society giving them the same rights and responsibilities as heterosexual couples. This has to be the short-term goal.

    The longterm goal is more radical, by which I mean tackling the roots of the problem. The roots of the problem lie in a monotheism which offers no recognition of the sexual act as an archetypical activity. By its very nature, monotheism cannot reflect the sexual act because the one god cannot have sex with himself. We therefore have the task of creating a new mythology which better reflects and speaks to the world in which we want to live..." The End of quote

    This message is being heard from almost every corner these days.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Churches need to encourage committed long-term same-sex relationships even if only to discourage anonymous and unsafe sex."

      Like the rest of the statement, this is patently false - especially as regards men. The anonymous orgy aspect is one of the perks in gay life that will never go away - it is recreational. So called monogamous 'marriage' is not even taken seriously by most active gays. Ask Dan Savage.

      It's a lie.

      Delete
  3. Another quote (source following):

    "... Modern theosophical literature, views human beings as innately sexless consciousness-centers which express themselves through material forms suited to their ever-growing awareness. Reproductive methods have altered very greatly as mankind has expressed itself through very different types of bodies under widely varying terrestrial conditions. Early stages of human evolution on this globe in this planetary cycle form a progression over millions of years from ethereal nonsexual beings, to more material androgynous ones, to today's sexual mankind. After all, the different forms of reproduction in nature are variations on one theme. All consist of an individual separating off a portion of itself which then evolves independently into a similar individual, whether through fission, budding, spores, seeds, or eggs hatched within or outside the body. Eggs may be self-fertilizing (containing both reproductive elements) or require fertilizing (containing only one element); in the latter case, the other element may be contributed by the same individual (hermaphroditism) or by a different individual (sexual reproduction)..." Source:

    Evolution and the Sexes, by Sarah Belle Dougherty
    (Reprinted from Sunrise magazine, April/May 1995. Copyright & COPY; 1995 by Theosophical University Press)

    Source:
    Access to Western Esotericism
    http://www.sunypress.edu/p-1966-access-to-western-esotericism.aspx

    American Thinker—The Abolition of Gender
    http://www.americanthinker.com/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2012/01/the_abolition_of_gender.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Reminds me of a Woody Allen film - forgot the title.

      Delete
    2. +JMJ+

      You mean the one in which he plays a sperm cell?

      Delete
  4. Just wondering Terry, how is it that same sex co-habitation is not the same/cannot be considered the same as opposite sex co-habitation? Can you elucidate on that? How are they different? How are they the same?

    Merc--thanks for explaining the different levels of sin too. I missed it in the catechism that gay sex is a worse sin than hetero sex outside of marriage. I feel like I've been in a Vortex!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are in a vortex. LOL! Just kidding. The answer to the first question is " just because."

      I hate it that I have to back up everything I say all of the time. But I suppose I need to go into detail for you. I say what I say because gay sex is niether unitive or fruitful, nor open to life - hence the reason I liken it to mutual masturbation.

      Though two men may love one another, the love is inordinate when it is sexualized. It is possessive, self indulgent, and manipulative. Though the passions and emotions are inflamed and sexual arousal results, it is essentially lust and therefore disordered.

      It may look and act and feel like heterosexual, or rather conjugal love, but it is not. Even when straights have sex using contraception - though it can be compared to gay sex on account of it being not open to life, that is nonreproductive, and essentially recreation, it nevertheless continues to be according to nature.

      I'm not an expert of course, and I know you do not agree with me - but that is how I understand it. It forms the basis for my conviction that two men can continue to live together as friends and live chastely and grow in virtue and grace, leaving aside the physical/sexual dimension of their friendship.

      Similarly, a man once addicted to masturbation can live chastely - with himself as it were - even though he could be considered an occasion of sin to himself. He doesn't have to cut off his hands or genitals to do live chastely.

      This takes us back to the argument people use against ssa men living together - that they present an occasion to sin to one another and therefore cannot continue to live as friends and support one another in their determination to live chastely and celibately. That notion is just nonsense. It is like claiming that the sex addict who uses his computer for porn - although he needs it for work - should throw it away and never go online unless a priest is present or something like that. Or that the self-abuser should cut off his genitals.

      Anyway - that's where I'm coming from. I know you don't agree, but one day I'm very sure you will.

      As for homo sex being worse than hetero sex outside marriage - that's traditional moral teaching.

      God love you, and may he continue to draw you to himself.

      United in prayer, Terry

      Delete
    2. Terry, I also believe that two men really can love each other, and that with grace they can do so chastely.

      Delete
  5. I didn't say it's a worse sin, just that nothing can make it legitimate.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually, I think St. Thomas may cite it as a worse sin, and of course, it is one of the sins that cries to heaven.

      Delete
  6. It is a worse sin against chastity yes, but there is nuance. In the order of chastity, masturbation is worse than fornication, but fornication involves sins against other virtues, such as justice, and it's usually more deliberate, etc. I'd say it's got more ounces of culpability :)

    St. Thomas classically said that rape was less of sin against chastity than masturbation, sodomy, etc. BUT when people jump on this they don't point out that he undoubtedly thought it was a much worse sin than any voluntary act because of the grave injustice involved.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for the clarification.

      Delete
  7. Thanks for replying Terry. I am not baiting you at all. Just trying to understand your thought process. And of course you have to back up everything you say! If you put it out on the web for all the world and God to see, be prepared! LOL ;-)

    Obviously we disagree, especially on the unitive aspect. Part of marriage is expressing the emotional and romantic aspect of the love relationship physically. You love your spouse and want to experience and show that love in a tangible way, that's nature. We are wired to be excited physically by the person we love, and str8 or gay it's the same.

    And let's not forget that str8 couples don't have to do "IT" to be having sex and expressing that love physically. That's recreational and non-procreative. And of course for str8 couples who physically cannot have children or are older, ie. gone through the change, it's purely recreational and not procreative. Just because a str8 couple naturally could have children (if they were willing and able) doesn't make those scenarios any different than a gay couple's lovemaking. Gay or str8 sex can be possessive, self indulgent, and manipulative. Neither has the market cornered on that.

    What does surprise me is that you admit that two men or women can love each other (I am assuming you meant in a romantic way). If the sex is inordinate, than the emotion is too. Loving someone and not sharing everything with the person that you love is inordinate.

    So I guess that it comes down to pretending. You think that some people are pretending that gay and str8 marriage are the same. I think that some people are pretending that they're not. I pretended that I was str8 and hurt a lot of people including myself in the process.

    I know that God does loves me, as I know He does you. Remembering you in prayer as well.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ace, good points, but the difference is that straight couples who are infertile either temporarily or permanently are only "accidentally" incapable of procreating, not "essentially." And that is the main difference. It's still an essentially procreative act, even if that's not the intention, or even if procreation is not particularly wanted at a given time (I doubt any 60 year olds are secretly hoping to have a child at that point).

      This is why mutual masturbation and contraception are also considered sinful. One is a complete sexual act that is not *inherently* fruitful, and the other renders a fertile act infertile deliberately.

      The teaching has always been that any complete sexual act must be *inherently*, *essentially* fruitful, even if it is not accidentally.

      Delete
  8. Hi John - Now everyone knows we disagree! Sheesh! :) So anyway - I appreciate your remarks and I knew you weren't baiting me, and I wasn't you.

    You wrote: "What does surprise me is that you admit that two men or women can love each other"

    I mean that in a disinterested way, going from philia, bypassing eros, and entering into agape. I see it in terms of friendship, chaste and celibate. Another blogger wrote something on how not having sex won't kill you - I didn't read the post but grasped the sense in the title. Chastity and celibacy is freeing - at least I see it that way - and I think historical, close, non-sexual, non-homoerotic, same sex friendships prove that.

    Thanks for listening.

    ReplyDelete


Please comment with charity and avoid ad hominem attacks. I exercise the right to delete comments I find inappropriate. Be sure and double check if your comment posted after you do the verification deal - sometimes it doesn't print if you made an error.