Will Gay Marriage Pit Church Against ...

Will Gay Marriage Pit Church Against Church?

There are 16101 comments on the news.yahoo.com story from Apr 27, 2009, titled Will Gay Marriage Pit Church Against Church?. In it, news.yahoo.com reports that:

The trouble they see is not just an America where general support for gay marriage will have driven a wedge between churches and the world, but between churches themselves.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at news.yahoo.com.

“Jesus=only way into Heaven”

Since: Nov 12

saved by grace through faith

#4859 Feb 9, 2013
Seriously__ wrote:
<quoted text>
I could google this, but I am certain I do not want to see what else comes up LOL.
If you please, would you enlighten me as to what those who go by the moniker Satanist do believe in or what they do believe? Or, could you give me a "safe" site so I may research this so I do not have to google it?
Thanks River and I hope all is well with you and yours.
Look in the mirror to see what a Satanist looks like.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#4860 Feb 9, 2013
Romans Road wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet another copy/paste fail!!!!!
I guess if you're screwy enough to believe Noah's Flood really happened you're screwy enough to believe your paranoiac delusions are real.
Fitz

Roseville, MI

#4862 Feb 9, 2013
Nettiebelle wrote:
<quoted text>THe SCOTUS found it in the 14th amendment.
Read Loving.
They expressly held that marriage is a fundamental right. Period. Right there in black and white.
Can't you read?
And SCOTUS decisions are constitutional law. That means it is the law of this land that marriage is a fundamental right, period.
So what do you have?
SCOTUS has FOUND THAT RIGHT IN THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. And their word is law.
The word of the Supreme Court of the United States in Loving v. Virginia, and the indisputable and clear finding that marriage is a fundamental right.
You lose Kerdy, and are once again shown to be dishonest.
*Note:
Thank you again Bud*
:)
Loving dosent say that marriage is a fundmental right becuase of the 14th amendment. It says ristricting marriage on the basis of race is a violation of the (already established) fundemental right to marriage.

When addressing the fundemental right to marriage Loving actually quotes the case of Skinner v Oklohoma

"marriage is a one of the basic rights of man, fundemental to our very existance and survival"..

Obviously nothing about same-sex "marriage" can be said to be "fundemental to our very existance and survival"

As multiple other supreme court precedents that refrence are unenumerated right to marriage demonstrate,(Griswold, Redhail, Skinner)- marriage derives its stature as a fundemental right because of the nature of the male/female coupling and whats inherent in that unique relationship.

“Only Biblical methods will ”

Since: Apr 10

help bring others to Christ

#4863 Feb 9, 2013
Romans Road wrote:
<quoted text>
Look in the mirror to see what a Satanist looks like.
I am sorry if you are having a bad day today. May you have more peace in your heart and life tomorrow than you have today. God bless you and yours most bountifully.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#4864 Feb 9, 2013
Romans Road wrote:
<quoted text>
Well we're not being deceived by a condemned fallen angel, Satan, who hates you and is just making a fool of you .
"Fundies" aka REAL Christians are on the winning side, our Lord and Savior Jesus has us securely in His hand and no one can pluck us from there (John 10:27-29).
Sorry, but you've been deceived by something a lot worse.......the inability to think on your own......you miss God's true message because you need to believe it comes from a book written by men who needed to be more than they were and craved power......just like you!!

See, it's not good enough for you to just trust in God......you HAVE to try and BE God.......you go around in these threads telling others who they worship, that if they don't believe as you do....they will go to hell and you simply don't have that AUTHORITY......only God does!!!

I don't think you are winning anything in this thread or in your life.......and I don't see you as anything close to resembling Jesus......so yes, you are nothing more than a BIBLE-THUMPING FUNDAMENTALIST who doesn't even follow the very book you idolize!!!!

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#4865 Feb 9, 2013
Fitz wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not sure what that cut & paste job is supposed to prove...but you can take my word for the fact that the 14th amendment dosent mention marriage.
Marriage as a fundemental right is an unenumerated right and is found in multiple Supreme Court precedents.
No, but it does say you cannot grant rights to one and deny those rights to another. I believe there are exceptions that apply to convicted felons but they are rare.

It's all just idle talk at this point until a test case makes it to the Supreme Court.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#4866 Feb 9, 2013
Fitz wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not sure what that cut & paste job is supposed to prove...but you can take my word for the fact that the 14th amendment dosent mention marriage.
Marriage as a fundemental right is an unenumerated right and is found in multiple Supreme Court precedents.
And in those cases, it is NEVER truly defined as simply between a man and a woman!!!!

“Game Over”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#4867 Feb 9, 2013
Romans Road wrote:
<quoted text>
Look in the mirror to see what a Satanist looks like.
I do. It's called atheism.

Show me a word that God wrote.
Fitz

Roseville, MI

#4868 Feb 9, 2013
15th Dalai Lama wrote:
<quoted text>
No, but it does say you cannot grant rights to one and deny those rights to another. I believe there are exceptions that apply to convicted felons but they are rare.
It's all just idle talk at this point until a test case makes it to the Supreme Court.
As a matter of fact this exact case has already been to the Supreme Court in a case called Baker v Nelson. That case was answered in the affirmative and dismissed with prejudice. It is a matter of standing precedent on the subject and has been quoted multiple times by lower courts both State & Federal.

In 2004, Justice Kennard of the California Supreme Court noted the precedential value of Baker in her Concurring and Dissenting opinion: Lockyer v. San Francisco (2004) 33 C.4th 1055, 95 P.3d 459, 17 C.R.3d 225, 7 Summary (10th) Baker was cited as precedent in the January 19, 2005 case of Wilson v. Ake, argued before James S. Moody, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division: Wilson v. Ake, 354 F.Supp.2d at 1302 The Indiana Court of Appeals noted the precedential value of Baker in an opinion upholding Indiana's Marriage Laws: Morrison v. Sadler, 821 N.E.2d 15 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) The New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division also noted the precedental value of Baker, and noted that it was also the controlling opinion in the State in regards to the equal protection claims on the issue of same sex marriage: Hernandez v Robles 2005 NY Slip Op 09436 Upon appeal to the New York Court of Appeals (The Supreme Court in NY State), the State Supreme Court also recognized the controlling nature of Baker, as to the Federal Constitution: Hernandez v. Robles, 805 N.Y.S.2d 354 (App. Div. 1st Dep't 2005) In an opinion upholding Nebraska's Marriage Amendment, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit cited Baker v Nelson and the authority of States on Marriage Law: Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning, 455 F.3d 859 (8th Cir. 2006) Justices Johnson and Sanders of the Washington Supreme Court noted the precedential value of Baker in their opinion : Andersen v. King County, 138 P.3d 963 (Wash. 2006) Baker was cited as precedent in Benson v. Alverson, Hennepin County District Court (MN -2011)

“Jesus=only way into Heaven”

Since: Nov 12

saved by grace through faith

#4869 Feb 9, 2013
15th Dalai Lama wrote:
<quoted text>
I guess if you're screwy enough to believe Noah's Flood really happened you're screwy enough to believe your paranoiac delusions are real.
Are you calling God a liar? Of course Noah's flood happened exactly the way the Holy Bible said it did.

Titus 1:2- In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;

Romans 3:4- God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

“Game Over”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#4870 Feb 9, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
And in those cases, it is NEVER truly defined as simply between a man and a woman!!!!
But, but, but....If you let women marry women the next thing you know men will be marrying men and the fork will run away with the spoon and the cow will jump over the Moon.

We must shut this nonsense down NOW !!!!

Trademarked circa 1954.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#4871 Feb 9, 2013
Romans Road wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you calling God a liar? Of course Noah's flood happened exactly the way the Holy Bible said it did.
Titus 1:2- In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;
Romans 3:4- God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.
You did it again. Calling the Bible God. I've already explained to you that the myths and legends are vehicles of an underlying theology but you can't get to the theology because you can't see past the myths and legends.

“Jesus=only way into Heaven”

Since: Nov 12

saved by grace through faith

#4873 Feb 9, 2013
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
But, but, but....If you let women marry women the next thing you know men will be marrying men and the fork will run away with the spoon and the cow will jump over the Moon.
We must shut this nonsense down NOW !!!!
Trademarked circa 1954.
Marriage is only between a MAN and a WOMAN. This has been the only legitimate way since the first 2 humans, Adam and Eve.(Genesis 2:22-24)

No REAL Christian church or pastor will disobey the Word of God just to appease the world. The Anti-Christ churches will have no problems disobeying the Word of God though.

“Jesus=only way into Heaven”

Since: Nov 12

saved by grace through faith

#4874 Feb 9, 2013
15th Dalai Lama wrote:
<quoted text>
You did it again. Calling the Bible God. I've already explained to you that the myths and legends are vehicles of an underlying theology but you can't get to the theology because you can't see past the myths and legends.
And I've already quoted verse after verse after verse that explains that God preserved His Word and the scriptures are inspired, inerrant, infallible.

Psalm 12:6-7, 2 Timothy 3:16, 2 Peter 1:20-21, Isaiah 40:8, Proverbs 30:5-6, Psalm 119:160, 2 Timothy 2:15, Matthew 24:35, Revelation 22:18-19, 2 Peter 3:15-16, John 17:17, Ephesians 6:17, 2 Timothy 4:2, John 10:35
----------
Everyone who has even a shred of intelligence knows that the Holy Bible is God's preserved and true Word.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#4875 Feb 9, 2013
Romans Road wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage is only between a MAN and a WOMAN. This has been the only legitimate way since the first 2 humans, Adam and Eve.(Genesis 2:22-24)
No REAL Christian church or pastor will disobey the Word of God just to appease the world. The Anti-Christ churches will have no problems disobeying the Word of God though.
Here's a point I don't think I've ever brought up in the forum.

You deny the fact that I went to Mass and read from 1 Corinthians but rather accuse me of changing ID and trolling some other forum. This is not from any knowledge of what I would or wouldn't do but what you would do.

“Game Over”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#4876 Feb 9, 2013
Romans Road wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage is only between a MAN and a WOMAN. This has been the only legitimate way since the first 2 humans, Adam and Eve.(Genesis 2:22-24)
No REAL Christian church or pastor will disobey the Word of God just to appease the world. The Anti-Christ churches will have no problems disobeying the Word of God though.
I really don't care what "real" christian churches or pastors do. Well, except when they condone and hide the rape of little children but that's for another discussion.

Marriage has nothing to do with your fundamentalist views. It's cute that you think it does. Yes it EEEEiss.

“God Loves Ilks!”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#4877 Feb 9, 2013
Romans Road wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage is only between a MAN and a WOMAN. This has been the only legitimate way since the first 2 humans, Adam and Eve.(Genesis 2:22-24)
No REAL Christian church or pastor will disobey the Word of God just to appease the world. The Anti-Christ churches will have no problems disobeying the Word of God though.
The Right of the Firstborn

Deuteronomy 21
15 If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons but the firstborn is the son of the wife he does not love, 16 when he wills his property to his sons, he must not give the rights of the firstborn to the son of the wife he loves in preference to his actual firstborn, the son of the wife he does not love. 17 He must acknowledge the son of his unloved wife as the firstborn by giving him a double share of all he has. That son is the first sign of his father’s strength. The right of the firstborn belongs to him.

“God Loves Ilks!”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#4878 Feb 9, 2013
Romans Road wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage is only between a MAN and a WOMAN. This has been the only legitimate way since the first 2 humans, Adam and Eve.(Genesis 2:22-24)
No REAL Christian church or pastor will disobey the Word of God just to appease the world. The Anti-Christ churches will have no problems disobeying the Word of God though.
Seems that God and Moses thought differently than you:
RE:
The Right of the Firstborn

Deuteronomy 21
15 If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons but the firstborn is the son of the wife he does not love, 16 when he wills his property to his sons, he must not give the rights of the firstborn to the son of the wife he loves in preference to his actual firstborn, the son of the wife he does not love. 17 He must acknowledge the son of his unloved wife as the firstborn by giving him a double share of all he has. That son is the first sign of his father’s strength. The right of the firstborn belongs to him.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#4879 Feb 9, 2013
Romans Road wrote:
<quoted text>
And I've already quoted verse after verse after verse that explains that God preserved His Word and the scriptures are inspired, inerrant, infallible.
Psalm 12:6-7, 2 Timothy 3:16, 2 Peter 1:20-21, Isaiah 40:8, Proverbs 30:5-6, Psalm 119:160, 2 Timothy 2:15, Matthew 24:35, Revelation 22:18-19, 2 Peter 3:15-16, John 17:17, Ephesians 6:17, 2 Timothy 4:2, John 10:35
----------
Everyone who has even a shred of intelligence knows that the Holy Bible is God's preserved and true Word.
You've quoted verse after verse from the Bible in an attempt to prove the Bible is the Word of God. It just doesn't work that way. If you want to prove the Bible is the Word of God you've got to get your evidence from outside the Bible. You know and I know that such evidence does not exist.

I will preemptively point out that personal testimony is not evidence.

John from Texas

“It's all in your head”

Since: Dec 12

Buda, TX

#4880 Feb 9, 2013
Romans Road wrote:
<quoted text>
And I've already quoted verse after verse after verse that explains that God preserved His Word and the scriptures are inspired, inerrant, infallible.
Psalm 12:6-7, 2 Timothy 3:16, 2 Peter 1:20-21, Isaiah 40:8, Proverbs 30:5-6, Psalm 119:160, 2 Timothy 2:15, Matthew 24:35, Revelation 22:18-19, 2 Peter 3:15-16, John 17:17, Ephesians 6:17, 2 Timothy 4:2, John 10:35
----------
Everyone who has even a shred of intelligence knows that the Holy Bible is God's preserved and true Word.
There sure are a bunch of dumbasses on this plant. I mean a very vast majority of humans don't have a shred of intelligence. What's the purpose of continued living if we are all so freaking stupid.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Wedding Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Transgender Ken doll cake triggers outrage afte... 1 hr Frankie Rizzo 25
News Hindu girl weds childhood Muslim friend in Paki... 5 hr Marie-Luise_J 1
News Rizzoli & Isles' introduction of Maura's husban... 11 hr Ex Fan 1
News Gay Republican Iowa Senate Hopeful: I'm Not the... 13 hr Skippy 4
News Greens against gay marriage plebiscite The Gree... 16 hr Rosa_Winkel 8
News Why Does the Church Wink at Divorce but Get So ... Sat Gremlin 10
News How Donald Trump is slowly teaching Republicans... Fri Lawrence Wolf 48
More from around the web