Obama administration makes statements

[Karlis]

Washington D.C., Jun 24, 2010 / 03:07 am (CNA).- President Obama and leaders in his administration have made many statements to mark “LGBT Pride Month,” calling for the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act and the passage of anti-discrimination laws to advance the LGBT “agenda” in the U.S. and overseas.They characterized opponents as foes of progress.

Read more...

[venqax]

Of course they do. Funny those ultra-right wing Clintonites didn't agree with them. Who are radicals in this picture? Remember, "there is no gay agenda", anyway. "Enemies of progress" is not a new concept. That's what Lenin and Stalin called "counterrevolutionaries" and Hitler called "Jewish conspirators".

[shadowhive]

I always find it amusing when Catholics call consentual homosexual sex a sexual perversion, since their church covered up what all those priests did to those kids.

[The Silver Thong]

I always find it amusing when Catholics call consentual homosexual sex a sexual perversion, since their church covered up what all those priests did to those kids.

Hypocrisy at it's finest.

[danielost]

I always find it amusing when Catholics call consentual homosexual sex a sexual perversion, since their church covered up what all those priests did to those kids.

yes but did the kids cconsent to it.

[Fernand0]

yes but did the kids cconsent to it.

Children are not allowed to have consent, that's pedophilia.

@ everyone

There are just as many straight pedophiles as gay ones, don't bash gays. The people politicizing sexuality should go play in traffic, that includes the president.

Edited June 25, 2010 by Fernand0

[danielost]

Children are not allowed to have consent, that's pedophilia.

@ everyone

Don't turn this thread into an attack on homosexuals. The people politicizing sexuality should go play in traffic.

i understand that the kids cant consent. but read what i responded to and maybe you will see why i put it that way.

as for your other part, there are a lot of homosexuals who would have to go play in traffic.

[Fernand0]

i understand that the kids cant consent. but read what i responded to and maybe you will see why i put it that way.

as for your other part, there are a lot of homosexuals who would have to go play in traffic.

Not all gays are pedophiles and not all of them are activists, some gays hate politics. That all presidents politicize sexuality is not a generalization.

edit

What people do in the privacy of their homes and in the intimacy of their sexual relationships is not something the president of the United States should concern himself with at this moment in time. There are failing economies to fix, an oil spill disaster to clean up and stupid wars to end. Obama needs to get his priorities straight.

Edited June 25, 2010 by Fernand0

[danielost]

Not all gays are pedophiles and not all of them are activists, some gays hate politics. That all presidents politicize sexuality is not a generalization.

edit

What people do in the privacy of their homes and in the intimacy of their sexual relationships is not something the president of the United States should concern himself with at this moment in time. There are failing economies to fix, an oil spill disaster to clean up and stupid wars to end. Obama needs to get his priorities straight.

i agree with all of this.

[shadowhive]

Children are not allowed to have consent, that's pedophilia.

@ everyone

There are just as many straight pedophiles as gay ones, don't bash gays. The people politicizing sexuality should go play in traffic, that includes the president.

That was exactly my point. The church is all well and good hiding something that everyone agrees is morally wrong, but something that's between constenting adults is all of a sudden wrong to them for some insane reason.

[shadowhive]

What people do in the privacy of their homes and in the intimacy of their sexual relationships is not something the president of the United States should concern himself with at this moment in time. There are failing economies to fix, an oil spill disaster to clean up and stupid wars to end. Obama needs to get his priorities straight.

It is something that shouldn't be such a big deal, but there are people out there that think 'oh it's wrong/they shouldn't have equal rights/they should burn in hell'. Some people are just obsessed with what people do in their own homes. If I remember right, wasn't it part of his original campaign to get all this sorted? I doubt it'll take priority over those things, but it something that's important and it was a reason people voted for him.

[gabe]

i understand that the kids cant consent. but read what i responded to and maybe you will see why i put it that way.

You really have to explain this better. Why is it relevant that kids didn't consent? It sounds like your trying to invalidate part of what shadowhive said, but I don't see how. Does it make Homosexuality a perversion? Does it make pedophilia less of a perversion? Does it make the churches statement less hypocritical? Were you trying to make the point that consent is a legal concept, so the usage of the word consent is useless when judging somethings moral value (i.e. something being consensual does make it better than something being non-consensual)?

Or are you actually agreeing with shadowhive, and pointing out why?

[danielost]

according to the what i read in the post. according to the catholic church it is wrong for two people to consent to homosexual behavior. and obviosly a kid cant consent, so maybe in their minds the homosexaul part isnt wrong. the kid part who knows what they were/are thinking.

did you know that when the catholics inacted their new policies about preists and kids it was only in effect in the usa. i dont know if it has become affected in the rest of the world or not. but at the time a priest found violating those new rules would be moved out of the usa to oh say england.

we are talking about a church that hid a killing room half way between a convent and, cant think of the name but where the monks and priests live, where new born babies of the nuns would be killed. this was in spain, who knows how many more of these are around that we dont know about.

Edited June 25, 2010 by danielost

[shadowhive]

according to the what i read in the post. according to the catholic church it is wrong for two people to consent to homosexual behavior. and obviosly a kid cant consent, so maybe in their minds the homosexaul part isnt wrong. the kid part who knows what they were/are thinking.

did you know that when the catholics inacted their new policies about preists and kids it was only in effect in the usa. i dont know if it has become affected in the rest of the world or not. but at the time a priest found violating those new rules would be moved out of the usa to oh say england.

we are talking about a church that hid a killing room half way between a convent and, cant think of the name but where the monks and priests live, where new born babies of the nuns would be killed. this was in spain, who knows how many more of these are around that we dont know about.

This is the sort of problem I have with the Catholic church. They cover and ship away priests that molest kids (and gods knows what else in the past) and yet they expect the people to follow their religion's 'morality' when they can't follow it themselves. So insanely hypocritical.

[preacherman76]

Of course they do. Funny those ultra-right wing Clintonites didn't agree with them. Who are radicals in this picture? Remember, "there is no gay agenda", anyway. "Enemies of progress" is not a new concept. That's what Lenin and Stalin called "counterrevolutionaries" and Hitler called "Jewish conspirators".

State sponcered marrage, regardless of gender, is in no way "progress". Government should have no say in anyones marrage, if we are truly free. Why should anyone, gay or striaght or whatever, need state permition to marry? Why should there be a third party in anyones marrage. Why should anyone need a lisence to marry? Taxed no less?

In trying to look like a civil rights hero, 0bama is just bringing us further down the road of government servitude.

[danielost]

State sponcered marrage, regardless of gender, is in no way "progress". Government should have no say in anyones marrage, if we are truly free. Why should anyone, gay or striaght or whatever, need state permition to marry? Why should there be a third party in anyones marrage. Why should anyone need a lisence to marry? Taxed no less?

In trying to look like a civil rights hero, 0bama is just bringing us further down the road of government servitude.

i dont know i think i would prefer a priest to the traditional marriage, at least jewish one, where the parents spend the wedding night to confirm that it has been confirmed.

[questionmark]

i dont know i think i would prefer a priest to the traditional marriage, at least jewish one, where the parents spend the wedding night to confirm that it has been confirmed.

Oops... no ide how this got here,

Edited June 26, 2010 by questionmark