Obama emailed me about gay marriage

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Aug 27, 2011
326
2
0
Wow! Obama is a disgrace,I thought he was a man who will stand against evil but today, he has shown us that he strongly support evil. Same-sex marriage is an evil act and we should strongly opposed it. It is because of homosexuality that GOD destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah; and He will not hesitate to destroy any nation or anyone who encourage this evil act. He will do it again if we fail to stop such act and ask for forgiveness.
Has Obama forgotten that America is a nation that was found base on the words of GOD that is, the foundation of USA was the word of God? If he as a president of this great nation can support such evil, it shows that he has no knowledge of his own country and he is not qualify to be a president.

We christains must stand and fight against such evil act. May the Almighty God give us the strenght and wisdom to overcome such leaders and such evil act.
Evil remain evil no matter who support it.
God bless we all.
Thanks
 
U

Ugly

Guest
Wow! Obama is a disgrace,I thought he was a man who will stand against evil
Seriously? He's pro-abortion, he's put us deeper into debt than any other president, whether he's even born in the US has still yet to be solidified, he's a puppet, he has an obvious pro-muslim mentality, the pastor of his church is reputed to teach racist philosophies .. oh, and lets not forget that time he mocked the bible. And he does all this while proclaiming to be a Christian.
 
P

Peter321

Guest
Why is there even going a discussion about this?
The Bible is overly clear on it and if you do not want to follow that or do not believe that then why do you feel you are a christian?
I think christians are followers of God/Jesus (right?), if He says something is not right, how on earth are you going to go against that? I just don't see it.

???
 
V

violakat

Guest
Do you follow the other laws in Leviticus?
If your asking if I am a legalistic, meaning I must follow the law in order to be or to stay saved, no or to follow the law that the pharisees set out, no. If you mean, trying to live a life that is Godly, because God calls me too, then yes, I do try to. And as I stated earlier, just because someone is gay does not mean God will not save them. But it also does not mean it's not sin in God's eyes.
 
Oct 7, 2011
344
12
18
As for whether or not someone calling a lifestyle choice yuck would make one turn away from the gospel... I am pretty sure I learned that anything good that I have to offer.. any lifestyle choice I made (whether that be sexual or other), anything I could possibly bring to the table on behalf of myself is yuck to God. Hence the need for a sacrifice of a spotless Lamb. I was yuck before I was washed in the blood. Now I look perfect and clean in the eyes of God because of His Son.

And I am grateful for that!
 

RoboOp

Administrator
Staff member
Aug 4, 2008
1,419
705
113
As for whether or not someone calling a lifestyle choice yuck would make one turn away from the gospel... I am pretty sure I learned that anything good that I have to offer.. any lifestyle choice I made (whether that be sexual or other), anything I could possibly bring to the table on behalf of myself is yuck to God. Hence the need for a sacrifice of a spotless Lamb. I was yuck before I was washed in the blood. Now I look perfect and clean in the eyes of God because of His Son.

And I am grateful for that!
Thank you Bridget, amen.

Let's examine my original post that some people are reacting to -- where I dared to say "yuck".

First of all, the context of the thread is Obama boldly proclaiming what no US president has ever officially done in this sense. He's basically telling the whole country (and even going against state majorities who voted against it) that it's good and normal for men to "marry" men, and women to "marry" women. Yes that should be yuck. If my children see a wedding of a man and a man, and see the groom french kiss the groom (yuck -- sorry couldn't help it), I hope they'd react with a "yuck" (and I'm sure they would) instead of "oh that's so sweet, look at the new husband and husband". They wouldn't and shouldn't react with a "yuck" to the sight of a real (man and woman) wedding. If they have no "yuck" reaction to such a sight of a man-kissing-man wedding, then you know what that means? That would mean OBAMA SUCCEEDED. That would mean that Obama and people like him -- or rather the prince of this world acting through him and people like him -- have influenced society to the extent that what should be naturally yucky is actually good and normal. That's Obama's goal -- and the devil's goal. But anyway, you know what? If we look at my original quote that got the original reaction, my "yucks" were actually a much more specific context, a very alarming context. Here, let's put me under a microscope, since some people like to do that :) :

Notice all the talk about homosexual "couples" "raising kids together" (yuck). That's the whole problem with legalizing gay marriage. Then gays have "equal rights" to adopt children (since they can't make a child!), and so then the government is giving innocent babies and children to homosexual pairs and lesbian pairs, to be their "Dad & Dad" or their "Mom & Mom" (yuck, sorry).

Notice my "yucks" were a reaction to one very specific context: pulling innocent babies into that extreme perversion with "Mom and Mom" or "Dad and Dad". Yuck. Don't do that to innocent babies please.

It's that very specific context -- a very alarming context of children being "raised" in this, which Obama praised -- that made me say "yuck".

I'm not perfect but I really don't see any big deal there.

I normally wouldn't say it more, but when some people make a big deal of it, it makes me wanna say it more. So here I go one more time:

Yuck.

Anyway forget about saving the whales, or saving the earth. Save those babies. :) Say no to Obama's agenda. Oh well, to tell you the truth I'm not an activist. I know the world is going more and more evil. But if I ever vote, this will be a big consideration. At least for the sake of the babies and children. :) Or maybe I just felt like sharing the news I just got.
 
Last edited:

GOD_IS_LOVE

Senior Member
Mar 16, 2009
306
4
18
I still think it is wrong for a Mod in an open CHRISTIAN chat to call gay people YUCK.
He was calling what they are doing "yuck", and many of us here agree with that. If you don't, report him. :)
 
T

TheGrungeDiva

Guest
It should be unthinkable to give a baby boy to two gay men to "raise" (as Obama obviously thinks is okay), and call that a family. So that's my main issue with "gay marriage".
Do you have any evidence that shows that a child raised by two gay men or by two lesbian women is worse off than a child raised by a man and a woman?

If I had statistics that showed that children raised by gay parents were more likely to grow up to be heterosexual than children raised by a mom and a dad, would that change your mind at all?

What if I had statistics that shows that more children raised by gay parents grow up to become Christian than kids raised by a mom and a dad?

Would you still deny children that gift, just because you think it's "yucky"?

If so, I'd say you've got a problem, and you might want to look into that.
 
L

Liz01

Guest
Do you have any evidence that shows that a child raised by two gay men or by two lesbian women is worse off than a child raised by a man and a woman?

If I had statistics that showed that children raised by gay parents were more likely to grow up to be heterosexual than children raised by a mom and a dad, would that change your mind at all?

What if I had statistics that shows that more children raised by gay parents grow up to become Christian than kids raised by a mom and a dad?

Would you still deny children that gift, just because you think it's "yucky"?

If so, I'd say you've got a problem, and you might want to look into that.
Actually....there are many researchs and evidence that prove its bad the gay adption , this is a place which there is part of that kind of information, you may want to take a look :

Gender Complementarity and Child-rearing: Where Tradition and Science Agree
 
Last edited by a moderator:

MrHonest

Senior Member
Jan 22, 2012
4,093
4
38
*sigh* Honestly this should be common sense. If you don't have that then please pray. The Lord gave us a guide Book for a reason & if you think it needs revising, then you need to revaluate yourself if you say you are Christian.
 
Aug 8, 2010
531
3
0
T

TheGrungeDiva

Guest
Actually....there are many researchs and evidence that prove its bad the gay adption , this is a place which there is part of that kind of information, you may want to take a look :
Gender Complementarity and Child-rearing: Where Tradition and Science Agree
Hey, that was a great source with good footnotes. I did take a look at that link. I don't know if this was written by someone you know, and/or if you've had this link in your "arsenal" for a while, or if you just recently googled it. The author is thorough, but unfortunately, there's a problem. I couldn't find a date of when that piece was written. It may have been written 30 years ago, which would explain why all of his references were 30 years old or more. If it was more recent, then the author purposely avoided more recent research on the topic, and that is problematic, because more recent research on the topic contradicts what he found.

I'm going to give this author the benefit of the doubt, and assume he actually wrote that piece 30 some years ago, when the research he quoted was fresh. The problem with that is that the absence of evidence doesn't mean something is false. I have never seen a black widow spider before. Does that mean they don't exist?

30 years ago, there would not have been enough evidence on which to base a conclusion about same-gender parenting. The sample size was just too small. It would be like me having dated one man who "done me wrong" and then concluding from that that all men are jerks. A lot of people think that way, but it is not good science. You need a much larger sample size before you can draw any conclusion, pro- or con.

All his references showed that two-parent (heterosexual) households were better for children than one-parent households. No one is saying that is not true. From this, however, he draws (and many of his sources draw) the conclusion that since one-parent household are not optimal for kids, it must be true that one-gender households are bad for kids. This is pure conjecture. It is conjecture on his part, and on the part of everyone he quoted who said that. It is a logical premise, but there is no evidence to back it up.

30 years since all those references, there have been hundreds, maybe thousands of gay couples who have raised children. We now have a sample size that we can look at. And the FACT is, children who are raised by gay parents have a slightly lower rate of problems (delinquency, learning problems, etc.) than children who are raised by heterosexual parents, and a FAR lower rate of problems than children raised in single-parent households.

From what I've seen, the "slightly lower" thing can be explained away by saying that the average household income for gay couples is going to be higher than the average household income for straight couples, and if you compare apples to apples, it becomes virtually equal. (In other words, the differences are linked to income and social standing, not to sexual orientation.)

So, as a scientist, this author would go back to his premise, find that it was false, and publish a new paper with his findings. It wouldn't surprise me if he has done that. As thorough as that paper was, I'm sure he would want to be just as thorough in his work today. It's a pity that his older paper is still out there, googled or saved, without the updates that would be necessary with the more recent research on the topic.

MrHonest said:
*sigh* Honestly this should be common sense. If you don't have that then please pray. The Lord gave us a guide Book for a reason & if you think it needs revising, then you need to revaluate yourself if you say you are Christian.
There's nothing as uncommon as common sense. The Good Book that I read says we should love our neighbor, even our enemy. The Prophets told us that we should deliver justice even to the aliens and strangers in our lands, not just to those who were "one of us." If your common sense is telling you something contrary to that message, then it is you who needs to "revaluate yourself."

Anything that contradicts Jesus' message of love is wrong, I don't care how much "sense" you think it makes, or how "yucky" you think it is.

As for me and my house, we shall worship the Lord.
 

MrHonest

Senior Member
Jan 22, 2012
4,093
4
38
You're right Grunge Diva but you're welcoming a lifestyle that is very confused. Do you tell them to be happy with who they are because you love them & teach all kids to be open & happy with this? Or do you tell them they're wrong because The Bible made marriage between man & woman holy?
 
T

TheGrungeDiva

Guest
Do you tell them to be happy with who they are because you love them & teach all kids to be open & happy with this? Or do you tell them they're wrong because The Bible made marriage between man & woman holy?
I'm not sure who this "them" is you're referring to.

As for what the Bible calls marriage, you really don't want to go there. The Bible, at various points, indicates valid marriage as being between one man and hundreds of women, and allows for a man to purchase a bride as if she were property. Is that really what you think the US should adopt?

Of course GOD blesses some unions between a man and a woman, when they make that vow before God and before friends and family to remain faithful to each other. That is called "holy matrimony," and yes, I believe it is sacred and beautiful. It has nothing to do with what legal rights are granted to a couple by the state. God doesn't give a darn about the state, and, as we all know too well, the feeling is quite mutual. Two people can be wedded in God's eyes and not have a legal, state-acknowledged union (I have several friends who have done this, for various reasons), and two people can be legally married and have no blessing from God for their union. I am lucky enough to have both -- my husband and I were married as part of a Sunday morning service, and we also have a state license indicating that it is a legal marriage. Honestly, I like having both; the tax advantages are not insignificant, but certainly God's presence in our wedded life is most important.

But I digress.

The Bible refers to lots of unions. Jesus does, too. Of course, Jesus didn't use the word "marriage." He wouldn't have even used the Greek term "gamouso" or any form thereof -- he would have spoken in Aramaic, and my Aramaic is a bit rusty. I agree that what Jesus said about marriage is -- or at least should be -- normative for Christians. What I don't understand why so many Christians seem to want to make Christianity the law of the land. This great country was founded on freedom of religion. There are plenty of things that are absolutely sin but not illegal, and should remain so. Gossip, lying (certain cases of lying are illegal, of course -- there's fraud -- but even little white lies are sin, but are perfectly legal), smoking, gluttony, etc. I've never understood why so many Christians seem to think that homosexuality is the one sin that should be banned, whereas these other ones are okay. Maybe it's because so many Christians frequently partake in all those other sins, so they don't consider them as bad as homosexuality. I wonder if God feel the same way, if he ranks sin like that, one being not as bad as another.

Now, as far as what I tell homosexuals, let me say this:

I can tell you that my friends and acquaintances who are not Christian don't hear any words of judgment from me. It is not my job to tell them what is wrong or right. I will, quite frequently, mention my personal walk with Jesus, and talk about how wonderful my life is with Him, but I won't turn it into any kind of "you'd better do the same or else" thing. I've found that you attract more flies with honey than with vinegar. I don't know if my telling them about Jesus has "saved any souls." It's not my job to save the soul, either. That's God's job. Jesus told me to share His story, His Gospel, his Good News, and that's what I do. The rest is up to God, and I am quite happy with that division of labor. I have no desire to encroach upon Jesus' territory.

As far as my close friends who are also Christian, there have been times that I feel I have been called to confront a sister or brother, to call them to accountancy. Jesus tells us we are to watch out for each other, and to help each other in this way. He outlines exactly how to bring up errors to our sisters and brothers, and I have always strived (striven?) to follow these directions. I, too, have been called to accountancy by sisters and brothers in the faith. When it is done out of genuine love, by those who are close, you know that Jesus is in the midst of it.

So let me ask you, what do you tell your friends and/or family, when they eat a little too much, or when they spread gossip about someone, or when they look down on someone as if they were better? Do you tell them to be happy with who they are because you love them? Or do you tell them they're wrong?
 
L

Liz01

Guest
Hey, that was a great source with good footnotes. I did take a look at that link. I don't know if this was written by someone you know, and/or if you've had this link in your "arsenal" for a while, or if you just recently googled it. The author is thorough, but unfortunately, there's a problem. I couldn't find a date of when that piece was written. It may have been written 30 years ago, which would explain why all of his references were 30 years old or more. If it was more recent, then the author purposely avoided more recent research on the topic, and that is problematic, because more recent research on the topic contradicts what he found.

I'm going to give this author the benefit of the doubt, and assume he actually wrote that piece 30 some years ago, when the research he quoted was fresh. The problem with that is that the absence of evidence doesn't mean something is false. I have never seen a black widow spider before. Does that mean they don't exist?

30 years ago, there would not have been enough evidence on which to base a conclusion about same-gender parenting. The sample size was just too small. It would be like me having dated one man who "done me wrong" and then concluding from that that all men are jerks. A lot of people think that way, but it is not good science. You need a much larger sample size before you can draw any conclusion, pro- or con.

All his references showed that two-parent (heterosexual) households were better for children than one-parent households. No one is saying that is not true. From this, however, he draws (and many of his sources draw) the conclusion that since one-parent household are not optimal for kids, it must be true that one-gender households are bad for kids. This is pure conjecture. It is conjecture on his part, and on the part of everyone he quoted who said that. It is a logical premise, but there is no evidence to back it up.

30 years since all those references, there have been hundreds, maybe thousands of gay couples who have raised children. We now have a sample size that we can look at. And the FACT is, children who are raised by gay parents have a slightly lower rate of problems (delinquency, learning problems, etc.) than children who are raised by heterosexual parents, and a FAR lower rate of problems than children raised in single-parent households.

From what I've seen, the "slightly lower" thing can be explained away by saying that the average household income for gay couples is going to be higher than the average household income for straight couples, and if you compare apples to apples, it becomes virtually equal. (In other words, the differences are linked to income and social standing, not to sexual orientation.)

So, as a scientist, this author would go back to his premise, find that it was false, and publish a new paper with his findings. It wouldn't surprise me if he has done that. As thorough as that paper was, I'm sure he would want to be just as thorough in his work today. It's a pity that his older paper is still out there, googled or saved, without the updates that would be necessary with the more recent research on the topic.
Hi, Im glad you had time to take a look of the article, i only wish you had read it completely and more carefully.

As you can see, the article refers not only about facts 30 years ago, but since 30 years ago to only few years ago (maybe 2004 or so) which proves that consecuences havent changed much with the time, dont they?

Besides that i think i must remind you that the evidence that results from test in ppl is different from another sciences, because the studies are not made with formulas and chemicals in which you can have the results immediatly. When studies are made in ppl and specifically these kind of studies in which are implied the development of a person, the environment where they live and the development of the ppl around them, they need time, so a good and reliable evidence of the growth of a person need years and that is why you will find results since 30 years ago till today.

And i dont think you should ignore one document or two just because its from the year of 1999, because then you should ignore all the theories, researches, evidence scientific discoveries with a date before 1999 or more.
And well.....if you dont like old documents...who knows.....maybe you dont even like bible...
 
Last edited by a moderator:

MrHonest

Senior Member
Jan 22, 2012
4,093
4
38
So let me ask you, what do you tell your friends and/or family, when they eat a little too much, or when they spread gossip about someone, or when they look down on someone as if they were better? Do you tell them to be happy with who they are because you love them? Or do you tell them they're wrong?
When they eat too much I tell them, when they gossip I tell them not to, when they look down on someone I tell them. I do try to tell them as often as I can in any way I can to be happy with what they have. They should already know that I love them or else I wouldn't be here. I tell them when they're wrong and I tell them I won't be around them when they're behaving any way that I know is wrong.

When it comes to company thats hard for me to find because I do have that personality that people realize,"oh he doesn't like this type of thing." I may not be as vocal as others but my personality reflects my beliefs. I'm not an annoying person and I get along with a lot of people but I let others know what I accept and what I do not accept. What is stupid and what is moral.

I don't degrade and insult people into converting because: what sort of heart wants to be thrown into a sty in order to realize they're wrong? I try to be understanding but I try to explain, if they will allow me, we are not meant for this world and all the materials we have here are only of value here. If you feel in your heart something is not well then something is not well. Powerful emotions exists away from God but they are lost emotions and you will only know true Love and Salvation Under God.

The more we allow ourselves to accept sinful things into our lives the more we let sin chisel at our soul. Just as you say sin is sin. Its not easy and to me being righteous and following The Word of God is the hardest thing in the world... because we want so many things especially nowadays we are spoiled with convenience.

Its not a good thing even if it makes a few people happy and that is what we Christians need to know.
 
T

TheGrungeDiva

Guest
As you can see, the article refers not only about facts 30 years ago, but since 30 years ago to only few years ago (maybe 2004 or so) which proves that consecuences havent changed much with the time, dont they?
Well, I'm sorry I did miss those more recent findings, then. You ought to be aware that a lot of research has been done on the subject, and dozens of studies contradict what your author says. I'd be curious to find out what his explanation is for the fact that nearly every scientist that has studied this subject has come to the opposite conclusion than he has. I'll look through it again and see if he has any explanation for that.

And i dont think you should ignore one document or two just because its from the year of 1999,
Well, first of all, 1999 is not "30 year ago." The papers I saw in his footnotes were from the 1970s and 80s, which is significantly before 1999.

Secondly, I do not ignore older documents, even ones written in the 50s, or the 1850s, or 350 BCE. I have no problem reading them. But if something in those documents says something contradictory to something more recent, well, then it's time for discernment. And I don't always take the most recent findings. Honestly, in some cases the most recent findings are quackers, so the older documents are more accurate.

See, any idiot with a computer can google a few keywords and pull up an article that seems to support any crack-pot theory they want. I could "prove" to you, with this method, that Elvis is still alive, and that he's giving birth to E.T.'s baby. It takes a little more than that to sift out the guano from the real science.

And well.....if you dont like old documents...who knows.....maybe you dont even like bible...
Oh, I love the Bible very much. But I wouldn't rely on it to give me last night's sports news, or tomorrow's weather report.

Again, it takes discernment when reading any document -- especially the Bible.
 
L

Liz01

Guest
Well, I'm sorry I did miss those more recent findings, then. You ought to be aware that a lot of research has been done on the subject, and dozens of studies contradict what your author says. I'd be curious to find out what his explanation is for the fact that nearly every scientist that has studied this subject has come to the opposite conclusion than he has. I'll look through it again and see if he has any explanation for that.



Well, first of all, 1999 is not "30 year ago." The papers I saw in his footnotes were from the 1970s and 80s, which is significantly before 1999.

Secondly, I do not ignore older documents, even ones written in the 50s, or the 1850s, or 350 BCE. I have no problem reading them. But if something in those documents says something contradictory to something more recent, well, then it's time for discernment. And I don't always take the most recent findings. Honestly, in some cases the most recent findings are quackers, so the older documents are more accurate.

See, any idiot with a computer can google a few keywords and pull up an article that seems to support any crack-pot theory they want. I could "prove" to you, with this method, that Elvis is still alive, and that he's giving birth to E.T.'s baby. It takes a little more than that to sift out the guano from the real science.


Oh, I love the Bible very much. But I wouldn't rely on it to give me last night's sports news, or tomorrow's weather report.

Again, it takes discernment when reading any document -- especially the Bible.
Well, the researchs and evidence is there but its a personal choice to decide to see whats evident or ignore the truth, as you said, each one of us should discern from what is good or not and decide.
I will be praying for you and God bless