Obama's gay marriage support riles religious conservatives, but political effects not yet clear
President Barack Obama addressing a gay rights group in 2011.
May 9th, 2012
04:55 PM ET

Obama's gay marriage support riles religious conservatives, but political effects not yet clear

By Dan Gilgoff, CNN.com Religion Editor

(CNN) – U.S. President Barack Obama’s endorsement of gay marriage on Wednesday outraged conservative Christian leaders, who vowed to use it as an organizing tool in the 2012 elections, but the move is also activating the liberal base, raising big questions about who gains and loses politically.

“It cuts both ways - it activates both Democratic and Republican base voters,” said John Green, an expert on religion and politics at the University of Akron. “The most likely effect is that it makes an already close election even closer.”

In an interview with ABC News, Obama said, "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."

The announcement puts Obama at odds with presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney, who opposes same-sex marriage and who voiced that opposition in an interview on Wednesday.

CNN’s Belief Blog: The faith angles behind the biggest stories

"Considering that 10 of the 16 battleground states have marriage amendments that could be overturned by the president's new policy position on marriage, today's announcement almost ensures that marriage will again be a major issue in the presidential election,” said Tony Perkins, president of the the conservative Family Research Council.

“The president has provided a clear contrast between him and his challenger, Mitt Romney," Perkins continued. "Romney, who has signed a pledge to support a marriage protection amendment to the U.S. Constitution, may have been handed the key to social conservative support by President Obama."

Obama stressed in the interview that his support was personal and that he would leave the issue of marriage to the states. But many conservatives chafed at the idea that the president's personal views would not affect public policy.

Follow the CNN Belief Blog on Twitter

Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York, the president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, released a statement saying the president's comments were "deeply saddening." Dolan's statement continued, "I pray for the President every day, and will continue to pray that he and his Administration act justly to uphold and protect marriage as the union of one man and one woman."

Bishop Harry Jackson, the senior pastor of Hope Christian Church outside of Washington, DC, said that "I think the president has been in this place for awhile and that he chose this time because he thought that it might shift the balance of power." Jackson has long campaigned against same-sex marriage.

Ralph Reed, a top organizer among religious conservatives, said Obama’s announcement was a “gift to the Romney campaign.”

Romney, a Mormon who has evolved to a more conservative position on hot button social issues, has struggled with his party's largely evangelical conservative base in the primaries. But Reed said Obama’s gay marriage support would help Romney in many battleground states.

“The Obama campaign doesn’t have to worry about New York and California,” Reed said. “They have to worry about Ohio, Florida and Virginia and I don’t’ see evidence that it’s a winning issue in those states.”

Green said that public opinion about gay marriage has been shifting dramatically in recent years, with some polls showing more support than opposition. Green said that in many battlegrounds, including Ohio, it's impossible to nail down current public opinion on same-sex marriage. A Gallup Poll conducted this month found that 50% of American adults support legal recognition of same-sex marriage, while 48% oppose it.

Reed noted that same-sex marriage bans have passed in virtually every state they have appeared on the ballot, including in North Carolina on Tuesday. That’s a typically red state that Obama won in 2008 and that is the site of the Democrat's 2012 convention.

Many liberal groups were ecstatic over Obama’s support for gay marriage. “Congratulations, Mr. President, for making history today by becoming the first sitting president to explicitly support marriage for same-sex couples,” said Rea Carey, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.

In his interview with ABC, Obama talked about squaring his decision with his personal religious faith.

“We are both practicing Christians and obviously this position may be considered to put us at odds with the views of others,” Obama said, referencing his wife, Michelle.

“But, you know, when we think about our faith, the thing at root that we think about is, not only Christ sacrificing himself on our behalf, but it’s also the Golden Rule,” he said. “Treat others the way you would want to be treated.”

One key Obama constituency that may be angered by his Wednesday announcement is African-Americans, who tend to be more religious than whites. Though they hew heavily Democratic, African-Americans are generally conservative on social issues like gay marriage.

- CNN's Eric Marrapodi, Shannon Travis, and Mary Snow contributed to this report.

- CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor

Filed under: 2012 Election • Barack Obama • Gay marriage

soundoff (2,108 Responses)
  1. Caffeinated Opinion

    Marriage sucks... but is sucks twice as hard if your gay.

    May 23, 2012 at 2:19 pm |
  2. Jim in PA

    Oh no! Obama has lost the vote of people who weren't going to vote for him anyway! What ever will he do?

    May 23, 2012 at 8:16 am |
  3. ReclaimMarriage

    If we invent new "rights" for g a y people then do we also do so for incest? bestiality? polygamy?

    May 22, 2012 at 6:23 pm |
    • James

      'New Rights'...interesting concept. What will we have to do next? Give women the right to vote and blacks the right to drink from the same water fountains as whites? The horror!

      May 22, 2012 at 6:52 pm |
    • Oz in OK

      Oh look! Another conservative demanding that polygamy, incest and bestiality MUST be legalized! /eyeroll

      May 24, 2012 at 12:10 pm |
  4. ReclaimMarriage

    when Obama attacks traditional marriage, even I a black man may sit this election out. beware.

    May 22, 2012 at 6:11 pm |
    • James

      Only 45 years ago,'traditional marriage' banned interracial unions. You should be ashamed of yourself for denying rights to the same group of people that fought and sometimes died for yours.

      May 22, 2012 at 6:49 pm |
  5. DragonWolfe

    It's time for people to stop using the bible as an excuse for bigotry. Bigotry and Hatred wrapped in Religion are still Bigotry and Hatred. Religion enables the bigoted and hateful to believe that their bigotry and hatred is virtue.

    May 12, 2012 at 10:48 am |
    • correctlycenter

      God's word is holy, pure, true! Man's thoughts are perverted! God position is clear but most of the world doesn't accept the truth, only political correctness...

      May 20, 2012 at 10:45 pm |
    • Oz in OK

      @correctlycenter – Of course, once someone starts quoting scripture that impacts YOUR rights, then the bible isn't so 'pure' or 'true' is it?

      May 24, 2012 at 12:11 pm |
  6. Rainer Braendlein


    • The moderators of this blog have set up a secret forbidden word filter which unfortunately not only will delete or put your comment in the dreaded "waiting for moderation" category but also will do the same to words having fragments of these words. For example, "t-it" is in the set but the filter will also pick up words like Hitt-ite, t-itle, beati-tude, practi-tioner and const-tution. Then there are words like "an-al" thereby flagging words like an-alysis and "c-um" flagging acc-umulate or doc-ument. And there is also "r-a-pe", “a-pe” and “gra-pe”, "s-ex", and "hom-ose-xual". You would think that the moderators would have corrected this by now considering the number of times this has been commented on but they have not. To be safe, I typically add hyphens in any word that said filter might judge "of-fensive".

    • Make sure the web address does not have any forbidden word or fragment.

    Sum Dude routinely updates the list of forbidden words/fragments.

    Two of the most filtered words are those containing the fragments "t-it" and "c-um". To quickly check your comments for these fragments, click on "Edit" on the Tool Bar and then "Find" on the menu. Add a fragment (without hyphens) one at a time in the "Find" slot and the offending fragment will be highlighted in your comments before you hit the Post button. Hyphenate the fragment(s) and then hit Post. And remember more than one full web address will also gain a "Waiting for Moderation".

    And said moderators still have not solved the chronological placement of comments once the number of comments gets above about 100. They recently have taken to dividing the comments in batches of 50 or so, for some strange reason. Maybe they did this to solve the chronology problem only to make comment reviews beyond the tedious.
    Zeb’s alphabetical listing

    o “bad letter combinations / words to avoid if you want to get past the CNN "awaiting moderation" filter:
    Many, if not most, are buried within other words, so use your imagination.
    You can use dashes, spaces, or other characters to modify the "offending" letter combinations.
    ar-se.....as in Car-se, etc.
    co-ck.....as in co-ckatiel, co-ckatrice, co-ckleshell, co-ckles, lubco-ck, etc.
    co-on.....as in rac-oon, coc-oon, etc.
    cu-m......as in doc-ument, accu-mulate, circu-mnavigate, circu-mstances, cu-mbersome, cuc-umber, etc.
    cu-nt.....as in Scu-ntthorpe, a city in the UK famous for having problems with filters...!
    ef-fing...as in ef-fing filter
    ft-w......as in soft-ware, delft-ware, swift-water, etc.
    ho-mo.....as in ho-mo sapiens or ho-mose-xual, ho-mogenous, etc.
    ho-rny....as in tho-rny, etc.
    jacka-ss...yet "ass" is allowed by itself.....
    ja-p......as in j-apanese, ja-pan, j-ape, etc.
    koo-ch....as in koo-chie koo..!
    pi-s......as in pi-stol, lapi-s, pi-ssed, therapi-st, etc.
    pr-ick....as in pri-ckling, pri-ckles, etc.
    ra-pe.....as in scra-pe, tra-peze, gr-ape, thera-peutic, sara-pe, etc.
    se-x......as in Ess-ex, s-exual, etc.
    sh-@t.....but shat is okay – don't use the @ symbol there.
    sp-ic.....as in disp-icable, hosp-ice, consp-icuous, susp-icious, sp-icule, sp-ice, etc.
    ti-t......as in const-itution, att-itude, ent-ities, alt-itude, beat-itude, etc.
    tw-at.....as in wristw-atch, nightw-atchman, etc.
    va-g......as in extrava-gant, va-gina, va-grant, va-gue, sava-ge, etc.
    who-re....as in who're you kidding / don't forget to put in that apostrophe!

    There are more, some of them considered "racist", so do not assume that this list is complete.
    Allowed words / not blocked at all:
    raping (ra-pe is not ok)
    shat (sh-@t is not ok)

    The CNN / WordPress filter also filters your EMAIL address and NAME as well – so you might want to check those

    May 12, 2012 at 9:49 am |
  7. Rainer Braendlein

    The verses of the Bible against ho-mos-exuality are meant verbatim. Yet today in the concrete handling of certain cases patience must be applied.

    We can imply that yet at Moses' time a gay man was not stoned immediately, but exhorted several times, before he was punished. If someone repented, he was forgiven and admitted again into the community of God's Chosen People.

    The equivalent of stoning at Moses' time is the exclusion from the Church (the Church is the successor of God's Chosen People) today, if a church member is not ready to repent from a heavy sin. The exclusion takes place first after at least three attempts of rebuke (by a singel church member, by several church members and by the whole congregation). Like stoning the exclusion from the Church can lead to the total destruction of the body of the church member in the worst case. A church member outside the Church has got no protection against evil powers.

    Basically a ho-mose-xual person can not remain in the Church. If he or she wants to remain in the Church, he or she has to repent. The Church is a place, where sinners can be cured from their maladies or where are people, which are already cured.

    Every true Christian is always aware of his own sinfulness and knows that he overcomes his sinful body only by God's Grace in Jesus. Hence, a Christian will not judge sinners, but offer the gospel of restoration towards them. In the Church there are people (sinners), which have accepted God's salutary Grace. If someone rejects God's offer of healing, he should stay outside the Church.

    If my workmate, classmate, neighbour, etc. outside the Church is a gay, I don't have to judge him, but treat him friendly offering the gospel by word and practical love.

    The only problem is, when gays want to be church members, without abandoning their sin by the releasing Grace of Jesus. This cannot be accepted, because the Church is the proper place, where are people, which are reconciled with God. Someone, who keeps on sinning, is not reconciled with God and doesn't belong to the Church.

    May 12, 2012 at 9:38 am |
  8. TYPICAL atheist's logic

    Atheists are like a fishermen who have been competing to hit the ocean floor using their long poles but failed. They decided to connect all their long poles altogether and made the last attempt but fail yet. All of them went back to the shore frustrated, telling all people that "ocean like beer in a bar, is bottomless".

    May 12, 2012 at 7:15 am |
    • momoya

      As has already been explained to you, the atheists in that situation would likely state the obvious–that they don't yet know how deep the water is since the tools being utilized were unable to determine the truth of the matter..

      If anybody in that scenario were religious, they'd be the ones likely to claim that some big magic guy spoke a spell to make the depth of the water an infinite measurement because god works in mysterious ways or some bullsh!t like that.

      May 13, 2012 at 12:01 pm |
    • closet atheist

      @ momoya

      Discussing logic with a christian is futile. If logic was something they excelled at, they would likely not be christian (or any religion, for that matter).

      May 25, 2012 at 10:25 am |
  9. kway

    Tom Tom was clearly not hugged enough as a child. Go ahead, hug that little girl.

    May 12, 2012 at 7:11 am |
  10. doppelganger

    'I happen to think mine make more sense than yours -'

    TYPICAL atheists mentality.

    May 12, 2012 at 6:31 am |
  11. Atheism is not healthy for children and other living things

    Prayer changes things

    May 11, 2012 at 6:02 pm |
    • Jesus

      Prayer doesn’t not; you are such a LIAR. You have NO proof it changes anything! A great example of prayer proven not to work is the Christians in jail because prayer didn't work and their children died. For example: Susan Grady, who relied on prayer to heal her son. Nine-year-old Aaron Grady died and Susan Grady was arrested.

      An article in the Journal of Pediatrics examined the deaths of 172 children from families who relied upon faith healing from 1975 to 1995. They concluded that four out of five ill children, who died under the care of faith healers or being left to prayer only, would most likely have survived if they had received medical care.

      The statistical studies from the nineteenth century and the three CCU studies on prayer are quite consistent with the fact that humanity is wasting a huge amount of time on a procedure that simply doesn’t work. Nonetheless, faith in prayer is so pervasive and deeply rooted, you can be sure believers will continue to devise future studies in a desperate effort to confirm their beliefs!.

      May 11, 2012 at 6:23 pm |
    • flat earther



      May 23, 2012 at 2:36 pm |
  12. Well.....

    I don’t really care if gay people want to get married, I would prefer they call it something else, but whatever. I do think we need better laws around healthcare, but at the end of the day Obama isn’t going to make either of these things attainable, and if he does they will be more hurtful than beneficial. With all of these added things such as gay marriage and universal healthcare we are losing sight of the most important concern which is the state of our economy financially and jobs for the unemployed. Unfortunately not every want/need can be taken care of immediately, though all are valid and should be addressed they will be just not at this moment. Gay people have not been able to get married for years and therefore waiting a few more won’t kill you. We have survived without universal healthcare for years as well and though it has sucked it is not a big deal to go without for a few more years. Obama and Romney are both not the greatest candidates to pick from for various reasons however OUR economy and job creation are the most important issues that we as a country need to focus on and then we can focus on gay marriage and universal healthcare. Obama made many empty promises and hasn’t delivered, he is also not very qualified to get our economy and jobs back on track, he is not the person for this task. Romney is the best candidate for this election.

    May 11, 2012 at 10:29 am |
    • AGuest9

      "We have survived without universal healthcare for years as well and though it has sucked it is not a big deal to go without for a few more years."

      Except for all those people who are dead because of it.

      May 11, 2012 at 10:24 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Goodness, me. We managed to survive without indoor plumbing and refrigeration! And we walked to school in 4 feet of snow without shoes! Uphill!

      Really, you idiot. Do you think such nonsense is relevant?

      May 11, 2012 at 10:29 pm |
  13. Reality

    Gay marriage? Gay unions? Minor issue!!

    Onto the nitty gritty of s-ex, contraception and STD protection in the 21st century;


    – from a guy who enjoys intelligent se-x-

    Note: Some words hyphenated to defeat an obvious word filter. ...

    The Brutal Effects of Stupidity:

    : The failures of the widely used birth "control" methods i.e. the Pill ( 8.7% failure rate) and male con-dom (17.4% failure rate) have led to the large rate of abortions and S-TDs in the USA. Men and women must either recognize their responsibilities by using the Pill or co-ndoms properly and/or use safer methods in order to reduce the epidemics of abortion and S-TDs.- Failure rate statistics provided by the Gut-tmacher Inst-itute. Unfortunately they do not give the statistics for doubling up i.e. using a combination of the Pill and a condom.

    Added information before making your next move:

    from the CDC-2006

    "Se-xually transmitted diseases (STDs) remain a major public health challenge in the United States. While substantial progress has been made in preventing, diagnosing, and treating certain S-TDs in recent years, CDC estimates that approximately 19 million new infections occur each year, almost half of them among young people ages 15 to 24.1 In addition to the physical and psy-ch-ological consequences of S-TDs, these diseases also exact a tremendous economic toll. Direct medical costs as-sociated with STDs in the United States are estimated at up to $14.7 billion annually in 2006 dollars."

    And from:

    Consumer Reports, January, 2012

    "Yes, or-al se-x is se-x, and it can boost cancer risk-

    Here's a crucial message for teens (and all se-xually active "post-teeners": Or-al se-x carries many of the same risks as va-ginal se-x, including human papilloma virus, or HPV. And HPV may now be overtaking tobacco as the leading cause of or-al cancers in America in people under age 50.

    "Adolescents don’t think or-al se-x is something to worry about," said Bonnie Halpern-Felsher professor of pediatrics at the University of California, San Francisco. "They view it as a way to have intimacy without having 's-ex.'" (It should be called the Bill Clinton Syndrome !!)

    Obviously, political leaders in both parties, Planned Parenthood, parents, the "stupid part of the USA" and the educational system have failed miserably on many fronts.

    The most effective forms of contraception, ranked by "Perfect use":

    1a. (Abstinence, 0% failure rate)
    1b. (Masturbation, mono or mutual, 0% failure rate)

    Followed by:
    One-month injectable and Implant (both at 0.05 percent)
    Vasectomy and IUD (Mirena) (both at 0.1 percent)
    The Pill, Three-month injectable, and the Patch (all at 0.3 percent)
    Tubal sterilization (at 0.5 percent)
    IUD (Copper-T) (0.6 percent)
    Periodic abstinence (Post-ovulation) (1.0 percent)
    Periodic abstinence (Symptothermal) and Male condom (both at 2.0 percent)
    Periodic abstinence (Ovulation method) (3.0 percent)

    Every other method ranks below these, including Withdrawal (4.0), Female condom (5.0), Diaphragm (6.0), Periodic abstinence (calendar) (9.0), the Sponge (9.0-20.0, depending on whether the woman using it has had a child in the past), Cervical cap (9.0-26.0, with the same caveat as the Sponge), and Spermicides (18.0).

    May 11, 2012 at 7:51 am |
    • sigmund101

      "Perfect use" is an unrealistic goal. Condoms and birth controls pills, used together, have a pretty good rate of success. Vasectomies have a good rate of success. A number of woman who are sure they are done with the desire to bear children may opt for a procedure to prevent further pregnancies. The "morning after" pill is quite useful as well. And let's face it, abortion is a rather good method of birth control. It's best to do it early on when a chemical abortion will suffice. Abortion should be much more widely available and all insurance programs, including those funded by the government, should be required to include it or, at least, offer it as an available option for a relatively small added fee. There are many good birth control methods, but in practice attempted abstinence is usually one of the poorest ways, though I am not against abstinence per se.

      May 11, 2012 at 9:14 am |
  14. Tom, Tom, Piper's Son

    Yep, I'm a tool bag.

    May 11, 2012 at 6:54 am |
    • Mirosal

      What kind of tools are you carrying? 🙂 lol

      May 11, 2012 at 6:58 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      My trolling sycophant adores me.

      May 11, 2012 at 7:17 pm |
  15. The Truth

    The LDS church has been caught on camera giving AIDS to the children of gay couples so that people will think that gay people are raping their kids and they ARE INNOCENT GAY COUPLES!!!


    The celestial room is a room in the LDS TEMPLES that is kept VERY SECRETIVE like the masons because the masons helped them design in! Not only that but new information has been uncovered recently that explain why so all of the temples are so locked down hard!

    Families donate their sons and daughters that are CHILDREN and they are then taken to celestial room and there the priests and high council church members who are WHITE MEN secretly marry these children usually three at a time and then they CONSUMATE the marriages to these CHILDREN and have been doing terrible things! The celestial rooms is never cleaned because the MORMONS believe that children's blood bring them closer to GOD. So they wipe the blood from the children all over the furniture!! After then they inject children with AIDS so that they don't marry anyone else later on and are kept "PURE" by that way.


    May 11, 2012 at 2:29 am |
    • myklds

      Thanks for the good laughs.

      May 11, 2012 at 6:13 am |
    • knows troll when I see one

      Nice trolling around. Hope you enjoy.

      May 11, 2012 at 6:34 am |
    • TR6

      I’ve heard they drink the children’s blood and they can turn into bats; but, they can’t stand day light or garlic

      May 11, 2012 at 11:01 am |
  16. n8263

    It is immoral to impose your personal Sharia Law on to others . Keep your religion out of politics.

    May 11, 2012 at 1:16 am |
  17. David Pollan

    This is all so painfully stupid. Cardinal Dolan, a vulgar media hound when it comes to the Gay Marriage" issue, yet a Catholic spokesman not available for comment when yet another priest or congregant is exposed as a pedophile should stop worrying about this Jewish man and what he and his partner may choose to do about recognition of their long-term relationship through a marriage in a pitiful minority of states. Tony Perkins? Just another zealot making money fundraising on an issue that any rational person knows will ultimately result in gay marriage being no more controversial than inter-racial marriages or Jew/Christian marriage. 10 years from now, these individuals will lie through their teeth and swear on a stack of bibles that they supported President Obama's courageous stance....and the same stupid sheep who follow them now? They'll say just the same thing.

    May 11, 2012 at 12:10 am |
  18. Saywhatyoumean

    You know, not everyone believes in a god or an afterlife. Also, marriage was more of a social contract in ancient times. In fact, Christians originally thought of marriage in those terms. It wasn't until Ignatius of Antioch and others around the turn of the first century, that Christians were told to make their marriage a vow before God. This country is a mix of different cultures and faiths, but the majority (Christians) are trying to hold onto their influence in American society just like the Muslims are in the middle east and elsewhere. People trying to have power over other people, according to their own narrow views. Some here mention Jesus – did he try to control others ? Who did he condemn though ? The hypocritical religious leaders of his day who only cared about power. It's an old story that's still happening today.

    May 10, 2012 at 11:54 pm |
    • Garlyn

      I know not everyone believes, but in the USA Most marriage contracts came about after the civil war. Even here they were seen as social and religious ceremonies. So why don't we get all the states to change the contracts to say "Civil Unions" and let the people who want to have Marriages and weddings with their religious leaders have that?

      If we do change the current definition of marriage away from "one man and one woman" based on Civil Rights because of attraction preference or love where does it end? Do we discriminate against polygamy when 5 people may love each other? Siblings? What about someone who loves their animal and the animal seems to love them? They wouldn't be hurting anyone else so why shouldn't we allow it?

      May 11, 2012 at 12:04 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Oh, please, Priscilla, stop your fainting spells.

      Can you not figure out that one gay couple does not equal bestiality or polygamy? What the hell is wrong with you dolts? If marriage didn't entail polygamy or bestiality before, why would it do so now?

      Good lord, are you retarded, or what?

      May 11, 2012 at 12:20 am |
    • Garlyn

      Welcome Back Tom Tom.
      Seriously, you don't think discriminating against people who believe in polygamy would not be a civil rights issue any more than Gay marriage?

      May 11, 2012 at 12:33 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Let me know when you have an interest in any serious discussion, dip wad.

      May 11, 2012 at 12:35 am |
    • Garlyn

      That's what I thought. No answer that wouldn't be a similar defense people are currently using to definition. You have a problem with Polygamy? Allow me to quote you from page 27 but changing "Gay" to "Polygamist"
      -quote modified-
      Tom tom said:, Do you really think that denying polygamists the right to marry will make them go away? Do you really think that they choose to be polygamists and could easily choose to be attracted to, love and marry just one person if only they decided to do so?"
      - end quote -

      So please tell me how Polygamists are harmful? who do they hurt? Why shouldn't they have the same rights as People who are hardwired to only devote and love one person when they can devote themselves to each other? Are you not tolerant of their Alternative lifestyle? Why shouldn't we be?

      So I choose to defend the current definition of Marriage, but believe domestic partners, and civil unions should have equal benefits under the law. I just don't agree with the lifestyle of those unions, I don't dislike the people.

      May 11, 2012 at 12:47 am |
  19. Garlyn

    @YeahRight, you had a very complete list of items that you felt would be granted to people because of marriage. My question is if all of that was recognized to Civil unions and not marriage, would the Gay Lesbian community stop pursuing Marriage? I don't think they would, do you? They want this "victory" not because of your list, but then for what?

    @TOM TOM, Piper's son. The question of Nature vs Nurture has always been debated. But by saying there is no influence why raise children at all? Just throw them in a house and make sure they are safe, fed and diapers are Changed?

    It is silly to think a society and parents, if they invest time, don't influence their children. There are things in my nature my parents helped me gain control over, like temper, day dreaming, procrastinating. Are there gay couples who could raise a child with out influencing them? No. If they are parents they will influence them one way or another.

    closing comment. Leviticus was the law, Jesus fulfilled the law. None of us will ever meet God's standards based on the law because we've all sinned, but Christ can say he stood in our place and we are not blemished because of him. We should love our neighbor regardless of which gender they are attracted towards. I will still defend marriage as defined by the bible, and pursue to have civil unions to have the same rights as marriages. The Government needs to get out of marriage licenses all together and change them to civil unions. Let the Priests and Pastors marry the people who want marriage by that definition.

    May 10, 2012 at 11:26 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Do cite anywhere I said parents had "no influence", you idiot.

      May 10, 2012 at 11:29 pm |
    • Garlyn

      @Tom,Tom. Name calling so soon? I'm actually disappointed in that statement, but I think you've been harassed by a troll.
      Looking back I realize I misread something when I was scanning through the thread and loading. I combined a statement from you and Fred so I apologize. Now stop throwing names before you provoke someones Id to take control.

      May 10, 2012 at 11:49 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Bite me if you don't like what I write.

      May 10, 2012 at 11:50 pm |
    • Garlyn

      I was being facetious about the name calling, you're pretty wound tight about this. Relax and have some tolerance and discuss it next time. Have a good night and Weekend Tom Tom.

      May 10, 2012 at 11:55 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Fuck off.

      May 10, 2012 at 11:58 pm |
  20. Larry Moniz

    When are "religious" leaders going to start showing charity rather than trying to force their beliefs on a secular nation. Like Muslim extremists, many fundamental Christian clergy try to impose their own twisted beliefs on the majority of Americans. Clergy should minister to their flocks rather than being involved in politics.

    May 10, 2012 at 11:04 pm |
    • Garlyn

      Could you give me an example of the Christian Clergy trying to force anything other than marriage into law in our current society? I mean I really don't see that much news about it do you?

      May 10, 2012 at 11:39 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.