Obama Endorses Gay Marriage

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Lux_Lucis**

Deadshot wrote:And tell.me how I am wrong?

Mainly because it is natural? We're not the only species to engage in homosexual behaviour, we've done it for millenia... To be honest this is largely only a problem in certain societies. Many societies in existence, and that have existed have seen no problem with homosexual behaviour. Feth, those manliest of men the Spartans had it built into their society/military structure.

**Deadshot**

I am entitled to my opinion. And yes, conjoined twins and "herat outside the body" are unnatural as they are not how humans are supposed to be.

Religious hatred are outside my control. I don't take action, I don't bully homosexuals, I don't bomb their houses. I can live with them, I just disagree with it, so you can't call.me a homophobic.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lux_Lucis wrote:
Deadshot wrote:And tell.me how I am wrong?

Mainly because it is natural? We're not the only species to engage in homosexual behaviour, we've done it for millenia... To be honest this is largely only a problem in certain societies. Many societies in existence, and that have existed have seen no problem with homosexual behaviour. Feth, those manliest of men the Spartans had it built into their society/military structure.

And where are they now?

Automatically Appended Next Post:
I wasn't stereotyping homosexual men as unmanly, or women are not feminine, all I am saying is I don't thinks its right

**MrDwhitey**

Personally, on straight people, I think it's not right to have heterosexual relationships.

It's just disgusting and icky and wrong.

**Lux_Lucis**

Deadshot wrote:I am entitled to my opinion. And yes, conjoined twins and "herat outside the body" are unnatural as they are not how humans are supposed to be.

Religious hatred are outside my control. I don't take action, I don't bully homosexuals, I don't bomb their houses. I can live with them, I just disagree with it, so you can't call.me a homophobic.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lux_Lucis wrote:
Deadshot wrote:And tell.me how I am wrong?

Mainly because it is natural? We're not the only species to engage in homosexual behaviour, we've done it for millenia... To be honest this is largely only a problem in certain societies. Many societies in existence, and that have existed have seen no problem with homosexual behaviour. Feth, those manliest of men the Spartans had it built into their society/military structure.

And where are they now?

You are entitled to your opinions, it would just be good if they were based on fact rather than unwarranted prejudice.

Yes the decay of their society was entirely because they practised homosexuality, had nothing to do with stagnation and conquest, like all empires.

Quite a few tribal groups practice it across the world, and many super-powers through-out history have (Ancient Rome and Greece, as well as quite a few Renaissance city-states as examples). Plato: '[homosexuality] is shameful to barbarians because of their despotic governments, just as philosophy and athletics are, since it is apparently not in the best interests of such rulers to have great ideas engendered in their subjects, or powerful friendships or physical unions, all of which love is particularly apt to produce'

**Amaya**

Did he really just try to claim that the Greeks are no longer a world power because they practiced pederasty?

**CthuluIsSpy**

Amaya wrote:Did he really just try to claim that the Greeks are no longer a world power because they practiced pederasty?

Wait what? Where did that come from?
I think you need to recheck your definition of pederast.
It is not a synonym for homosexuality.

**Lux_Lucis**

Amaya wrote:Did he really just try to claim that the Greeks are no longer a world power because they practiced pederasty?

Oh yeah. And yeah CthuluIsSpy is right, although they did practice that as well, in Athens at least.

Anyways, I'm going to heed my own advice and not try and change someone's opinion since it rarely works.

Back on topic (oh the ironies of the Off-Topic Forum), looking in from the outside it looks like clarifying his position is pretty gutsy of Obama since this seems to be a pretty divisive issue over there (although since I don't live there I may be wrong).

And I agree, governments should not be involving themselves in such things. If a church wants to refuse to sanctify a same-sex marriage then I think that's their choice, but if there are going to be tax benefits for married couples (or groups for polygamists) then that should just be a legal state that has nothing to do with religion.

**Deadshot**

CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Amaya wrote:Did he really just try to claim that the Greeks are no longer a world power because they practiced pederasty?

Wait what? Where did that come from?
I think you need to recheck your definition of pederast.
It is not a synonym for homosexuality.

No I did not. I am just saying that they are no longer a superpower.

As I understand it, the idea behind was that you fight harder for those you love. If you love your conrades, you fight harder to ensure they did.not die. While a good.concept, it is flawed in that you fight because you have to. Love is an illusion like all emotions. We, like other animals, have a primary goal in ensuring that our own genes survive. If impossible we preserve our species. Homosexuality supports neither. You do not pass on your genes or create more humans for the species.

**Lux_Lucis**

Deadshot wrote:
CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Amaya wrote:Did he really just try to claim that the Greeks are no longer a world power because they practiced pederasty?

Wait what? Where did that come from?
I think you need to recheck your definition of pederast.
It is not a synonym for homosexuality.

No I did not. I am just saying that they are no longer a superpower.

As I understand it, the idea behind was that you fight harder for those you love. If you love your conrades, you fight harder to ensure they did.not die. While a good.concept, it is flawed in that you fight because you have to. Love is an illusion like all emotions. We, like other animals, have a primary goal in ensuring that our own genes survive. If impossible we preserve our species. Homosexuality supports neither. You do not pass on your genes or create more humans for the species.

Homosexuality exists in most (if not all) social animals, because it builds beneficial social bonds that help the group in times of need, thus helping protect the group. Nature does not just play one card repeatedly.

**Deadshot**

Though, back onto the topic. Obama did need some balls to do that, I 'll say that. Churches and religion are powerful allies and dangerous enemies. Going against a religion will earn you enemies and he may lose the elction because.of die-hard religous people hating him. Then again, he could win it by more homosexuals returning the favour of support.

**Melissia**

Deadshot wrote:No I did not. I am just saying that they are no longer a superpower.

By that reasoning we should emulate China because they're the rising superpower, therefor they must be the one that is morally right.

I hope you like corrupt government officials.

**Deadshot**

I do actually. Bribimg helps in the short run. Short run is better to.me than long. The long run will change depending on the short.

**Corpsesarefun**

More ignores for the ignore throne.

**Lux_Lucis**

Deadshot wrote:I do actually. Bribimg helps in the short run. Short run is better to.me than long. The long run will change depending on the short.

Seriously? Please go read some history and world politics. Just check out the entirety of Africa and most of the Middle East, especially the People's Democratic Republic of the Congo. Corruption is largely a vicious cycle.

Keep getting drawn in...

**LoneLictor**

Deadshot wrote:I do actually. Bribimg helps in the short run. Short run is better to.me than long. The long run will change depending on the short.

You're quite the nutter. Corrupt politicians are generally not good people.

**Melissia**

Deadshot wrote:I do actually. Bribimg helps in the short run. Short run is better to.me than long.

So you agree that a company laying off its most skilled workers and then giving its corporate executives a bonus is a good thing because it benefits the company in the short term as the stockholders for some reason become happy (and you don't care about the long term, where the company has effectively destroyed its ability to compete)?

Though I will say, if you like bribery so much, there's always Mexico. It's a wonderful place to live, if you don't mind the drug lords bribing cops and government officials to ignore their kidnappings, gang-rapes, and public executions.

**Amaya**

CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Amaya wrote:Did he really just try to claim that the Greeks are no longer a world power because they practiced pederasty?

Wait what? Where did that come from?
I think you need to recheck your definition of pederast.
It is not a synonym for homosexuality.

Really? Thanks Watson, I was completely unaware of that fact!

**CthuluIsSpy**

Deadshot wrote:I do actually. Bribimg helps in the short run. Short run is better to.me than long. The long run will change depending on the short.

...Are you high?
A corrupt government is not a good one.
They are generally unstable and a threat to its own people. Please refer to the aforementioned drug lords in mexico for more details.

**UsdiThunder**

The only real reason he did it was to generate more donations from Hollywood. It puts him in a bad position because Blacks and Hispanics historically trend away from supporting gay rights.

Strategically he did the best thing in stating that he supports it, but he didn't say he was going to do anything about it.

Kinda like Snikrot coming from the back table edge against a leafblower list. They might glance that Chimera enough to wreck it and kill the guys inside, but not really.

**alarmingrick**

Deadshot wrote:I am entitled to my opinion.

Yes, you are. You are not, however, entitled to decide what is or isn't natural. Not for anyone outside of you that is.

CthuluIsSpy wrote:
...Are you high?

Do you have to say it like it's a bad thing?!

Automatically Appended Next Post:

UsdiThunder wrote:The only real reason he did it was to generate more donations from Hollywood. It puts him in a bad position because Blacks and Hispanics historically trend away from supporting gay rights.

But I think the Black and Hispanic communities have way more to lose if the President loses, than just that one issue.

**Melissia**

Yes, this is a much less important issue for many Hispanics than the reduction of benefits that they would get under a Republican president.

**alarmingrick**

Melissia wrote:Yes, this is a much less important issue for many Hispanics than the reduction of benefits that they would get under a Republican president.

Or issues like build that fence on your way out, if you don't mind, hombre.

**Melissia**

Or Romney's "make them suffer until they self-deport" speech.

**Fafnir**

Deadshot wrote:I am entitled to my opinion.

Thankfully, opinion has no value in the face of facts that completely debunk it.

There's a difference between having an opinion and choosing to be wrong. You're choosing to be wrong.

**d-usa**

A nice little quote from 2011, featuring the man himself. From Clint Eastwood, with the customary cursing altered of course:

"These people who are making a big deal out of gay marriage? I don't give a [feth] about who wants to get married to anybody else! Why not?! We're making a big deal out of things we shouldn't be making a deal out of."

"They go on and on with all this bull[scat] about 'sanctity' -- don't give me that sanctity crap! Just give everybody the chance to have the life they want."

Although he is a registered Republican, Eastwood doesn't consider himself a conservative. He has supported California's former Democratic Gov. Gray Davis and Democratic Rep. Sam Farr.

"I was an Eisenhower Republican when I started out at 21, because he promised to get us out of the Korean War, and over the years, I realized there was a Republican philosophy that I liked. And then they lost it. And libertarians had more of it. Because what I really believe is, let's spend a little more time leaving everybody alone."

**reds8n**

http://anthropologist.livejournal.com/1314574.html

Contrary to myth, Christianity's concept of marriage has not been set in stone since the days of Christ, but has constantly evolved as a concept and ritual. Prof. John Boswell, the late Chairman of Yale University’s history department, discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient Christian church liturgical documents, there were also ceremonies called the "Office of Same-Sex Union" (10th and 11th century), and the "Order for Uniting Two Men" (11th and 12th century).

These church rites had all the symbols of a heterosexual marriage: the whole community gathered in a church, a blessing of the couple before the altar was conducted with their right hands joined, holy vows were exchanged, a priest officiatied in the taking of the Eucharist and a wedding feast for the guests was celebrated afterwards. These elements all appear in contemporary illustrations of the holy union of the Byzantine Warrior-Emperor, Basil the First (867-886 CE) and his companion John.

Original Article or

A Kiev art museum contains a curious icon from St. Catherine's Monastery on Mt. Sinai in Israel. It shows two robed Christian saints. Between them is a traditional Roman ‘pronubus’ (a best man), overseeing a wedding. The pronubus is Christ. The married couple are both men.

Is the icon suggesting that a gay "wedding" is being sanctified by Christ himself? The idea seems shocking. But the full answer comes from other early Christian sources about the two men featured in the icon, St. Sergius and St. Bacchus, two Roman soldiers who were Christian martyrs. These two officers in the Roman army incurred the anger of Emperor Maximian when they were exposed as ‘secret Christians’ by refusing to enter a pagan temple. Both were sent to Syria circa 303 CE where Bacchus is thought to have died while being flogged. Sergius survived torture but was later beheaded. Legend says that Bacchus appeared to the dying Sergius as an angel, telling him to be brave because they would soon be reunited in heaven.

While the pairing of saints, particularly in the early Christian church, was not unusual, the association of these two men was regarded as particularly intimate. Severus, the Patriarch of Antioch (AD 512 - 518) explained that, "we should not separate in speech they [Sergius and Bacchus] who were joined in life". This is not a case of simple "adelphopoiia." In the definitive 10th century account of their lives, St. Sergius is openly celebrated as the "sweet companion and lover" of St. Bacchus. Sergius and Bacchus's close relationship has led many modern scholars to believe they were lovers. But the most compelling evidence for this view is that the oldest text of their martyrology, written in New Testament Greek describes them as "erastai,” or "lovers". In other words, they were a male homosexual couple. Their orientation and relationship was not only acknowledged, but it was fully accepted and celebrated by the early Christian church, which was far more tolerant than it is today.

Contrary to myth, Christianity's concept of marriage has not been set in stone since the days of Christ, but has constantly evolved as a concept and ritual.

Prof. John Boswell, the late Chairman of Yale University’s history department, discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient Christian church liturgical documents, there were also ceremonies called the "Office of Same-Sex Union" (10th and 11th century), and the "Order for Uniting Two Men" (11th and 12th century).

These church rites had all the symbols of a heterosexual marriage: the whole community gathered in a church, a blessing of the couple before the altar was conducted with their right hands joined, holy vows were exchanged, a priest officiatied in the taking of the Eucharist and a wedding feast for the guests was celebrated afterwards. These elements all appear in contemporary illustrations of the holy union of the Byzantine Warrior-Emperor, Basil the First (867-886 CE) and his companion John.

Such same gender Christian sanctified unions also took place in Ireland in the late 12thand/ early 13th century, as the chronicler Gerald of Wales (‘Geraldus Cambrensis’) recorded.

Same-sex unions in pre-modern Europe list in great detail some same gender ceremonies found in ancient church liturgical documents. One Greek 13th century rite, "Order for Solemn Same-Sex Union", invoked St. Serge and St. Bacchus, and called on God to "vouchsafe unto these, Thy servants [N and N], the grace to love one another and to abide without hate and not be the cause of scandal all the days of their lives, with the help of the Holy Mother of God, and all Thy saints". The ceremony concludes: "And they shall kiss the Holy Gospel and each other, and it shall be concluded".

Another 14th century Serbian Slavonic "Office of the Same Sex Union", uniting two men or two women, had the couple lay their right hands on the Gospel while having a crucifix placed in their left hands. After kissing the Gospel, the couple were then required to kiss each other, after which the priest, having raised up the Eucharist, would give them both communion.

Records of Christian same sex unions have been discovered in such diverse archives as those in the Vatican, in St. Petersburg, in Paris, in Istanbul and in the Sinai, covering a thousand-years from the 8th to the 18th century.

The Dominican missionary and Prior, Jacques Goar (1601-1653), includes such ceremonies in a printed collection of Greek Orthodox prayer books, “Euchologion Sive Rituale Graecorum Complectens Ritus Et Ordines Divinae Liturgiae” (Paris, 1667).

While homosexuality was technically illegal from late Roman times, homophobic writings didn’t appear in Western Europe until the late 14th century. Even then, church-consecrated same sex unions continued to take place.

At St. John Lateran in Rome (traditionally the Pope's parish church) in 1578, as many as thirteen same-gender couples were joined during a high Mass and with the cooperation of the Vatican clergy, "taking communion together, using the same nuptial Scripture, after which they slept and ate together" according to a contemporary report. Another woman to woman union is recorded in Dalmatia in the 18th century.

Prof. Boswell's academic study is so well researched and documented that it poses fundamental questions for both modern church leaders and heterosexual Christians about their own modern attitudes towards homosexuality.

For the Church to ignore the evidence in its own archives would be cowardly and deceptive. The evidence convincingly shows that what the modern church claims has always been its unchanging attitude towards homosexuality is, in fact, nothing of the sort.

It proves that for the last two millennia, in parish churches and cathedrals throughout Christendom, from Ireland to Istanbul and even in the heart of Rome itself, homosexual relationships were accepted as valid expressions of a God-given love and committment to another person, a love that could be celebrated, honored and blessed, through the Eucharist in the name of, and in the presence of, Jesus Christ.

And yes, conjoined twins and "herat outside the body" are unnatural as they are not how humans are supposed to be.

... I'm not quite sure what you're saying here.

They are natural as they, you know, happen naturally. They are abnormal but that's different from unnatural surely ?

Of course clothes, vehicular transport, typing messages on a screen to communicate with people you've never met from all across the world and most medical procedures are also unnatural, do you think we shouldn't do or use them too then ?

**Hordini**

Interesting article reds8n, thanks for posting. I'm curious when the practice generally started to disappear and when the overall opinion in most churches shifted to what it is today.

**Piston Honda**

MrDwhitey wrote:Personally, on straight people, I think it's not right to have heterosexual relationships.

It's just disgusting and icky and wrong.

Yeah, straight people do some pretty disgusting things to each other.

Just search on google images.

**Bromsy**

I have to say, after what - about ninety seven of these gay marriage debates here, the only point I think is interesting is that most seem to think hetero and homosexual relationships are better bestiality because animals can't give consent ( I think they are better 'cause banging animals is weird), which means that we're all enabling literally countless cases of animal rape since animals can't consent and yet we just go on letting them bang each other. In many cases, we work hard to make sure that happens.

Hmm. I have no idea where I am going with this. Stupid massive amounts of rum.

**reds8n**

it's even worse than you might think