Posted on 03/09/2008 10:53:12 AM PDT by John Semmens
Presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama (D-Ill.) puzzled listeners in a Hocking College crowd when he claimed that the Sermon on the Mount justifies homosexual marriage.
“When Jesus gave his ‘Sermon on the Mount’ He didn’t specify the sex of the participants,” Obama declared. “He didn’t say that a man should only mount a woman. I think we have to take that as a clear sign that God wants all His children to have equal rights to marry whoever they most love.”
“I think Senator Obama is very confused,” said Christian Mann, spokesman for the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights. “The Sermon on the Mount refers to the location at which Jesus spoke. It most certainly had nothing to do with sexual positions and cannot be used as a justification for any crackpot ideas on same-sex marriages.”
Obama’s campaign website promises that he will use the presidency as a “bully pulpit” for promoting homosexual causes. “If Bill Clinton can call himself America’s first ‘Black’ president, I can promise to call myself America’s first gay—at least in spirit—president,” Obama is quoted as saying.
(Excerpt) Read more at azconservative.org ...
HoBoy, he’s stepped in the Tar Pits now. Fr. Mitch Pacwa, on EWTN, did about a ten-minute rant last week on Obama’s ‘interpretation’ of the Bible. Very prophetic, his eyes were blazing.
Keep talking, ‘bamie. And make sure that flapping-mouthed wife of yours is front and center.
And I hope Baraq Husayn ibn Mahomet gets quoted from here to hell for this one!!
BS.
It even says “satirical” in the headline.
“He didn’t say that a man should only mount a woman.”
This guy is truly something else. What wrong did we do as a nation to produce idiots like that? Did his Imam tell him to teach that nonsense?
this is satire......!
It’s always satire when referring to Obambi.
Currently, blood bank rules do not allow men who have had anal sex to donate blood because of the danger of transmitting AIDS. Sonoma State University (Calif.) professor Rick Luttmann disagrees, calling the risk of disease transmission “a small price to pay for an egalitarian society.” “A person receiving a blood transfusion from a gay man might get AIDS,” Luttmann admitted. “However, weighed against the certainty of diminished feelings of self-worth in the gay person denied the right to donate his blood, I think it is clear that all right-thinking people would agree that this discrimination is the greater evil.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Is this for real?
bttt
Surely this is a joke..
In your query it appears that he is being truthful. See the following:
Battle over blood. By LAURA NORTON THE PRESS DEMOCRAT in Santa Rosa/Sonoma, CA
Yes it could be its own thread. Be my guest.
Regards
Bonehead
Good work John!
Regards
Bonehead
Battle over blood (Professor wants to ban blood banks as "discriminatory") 03/08/2008.
Regards
Bonehead
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.