Will Gay Marriage Pit Church Against ...

Will Gay Marriage Pit Church Against Church?

There are 16097 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.

LowellGuy

United States

#545 Jan 23, 2013
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's take your fourth point and apply it for today. Same sex marriages are unnatural. They have never happened as a norm for any society. Homosexual sex is unnatural because the body was not made to complement same sex. Its unnatural in the way that it destroys the body via diseases that result from it.
Mixed race marriages were not (and are not) the norm for any society.

The sexual activities of homosexuals are also done by heterosexuals, so are you against allowing heterosexual couples to marry if they practice cunnilingus, fellatio, and/or anal sex? Would you allow same-sex couples to marry if they are celibate? We allow inter-racial marriage despite its place as a deviation from the norm. Nothing you said same-sex couples do is off-limits to heterosexual couples, and you surely don't see "not the norm" as a reason to prohibit particular marriages. It sounds like you're simply against marriage.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#546 Jan 23, 2013
Catholic Girl wrote:
<quoted text>
So you don't understand. Never stated anything about being immortal. Think as you read. Gays act like animals sexually...
You are going to need to explain that one. How do animals act sexually just like humans? What do all gay folk to that straight folks do not?

And why, on a thread about marriage, are you thinking so much about sex and animals?

Seriously.

“No Allah: know peace”

Since: Jun 07

A sacred grove in Tujunga, CA

#547 Jan 23, 2013
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Then you must be for polygamy and for fathers to marry their adult daughters. Right?
What is wrong with polygamy?

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#548 Jan 23, 2013
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
I understand enough of this same sex nonsense to know its not healthy.
What are you talking about? Sexual orientation is a natural god-given trait. Nothing nonsensical there.

Love is not nonsense. Attraction is not nonsense. Falling in love and forming connections and families isn't nonsense.

What part is nonsense?

Or, is it just that since you cannot physically feel yourself how other people feel, you need to think that other folks feelings must be nonsense?

Do you know what empathy is?

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#549 Jan 23, 2013
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Get serious. Its condemned in every place its mentioned.
Being able to be attracted to ONLY the same gender is never mentioned. Judging others without knowledge is.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#550 Jan 23, 2013
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
No its not. A marriage is really only between a man and a woman. No man can be a wife.
Huh?

No, but two men can both be husbands and two women can both be wives.

Get it? Pretty simple.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#551 Jan 23, 2013
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
A man lying with another man is what is forbidden. It doesn't matter what you call it.
Why? Why isn't context important?

Why did God create so many folks who can only be attracted to the same gender, give them the innate ability and deep need for love, sex, and a soul mate, and even SEND them that soul mate on occasion.

Only to condemn them to the fiery pit if they accept any of those blessings sent their way?

That's one sick deity.

Many people believe that the Christian God is not that type of twisted monster. What do you believe?

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#552 Jan 23, 2013
Catholic Girl wrote:
<quoted text>
So you don't understand. Never stated anything about being immortal. Think as you read. Gays act like animals sexually. God gave humans free will, which gives human beings a choice to make. Your type picked the incorrect choice.
Little Darling, I'm just facinated by this comment, facinated I tell you! Up this point I simply assumed little Catholic inductees were a product of the old grunt and squirt in the sexual manner of any other animal. Since you don't act like animals sexually can I assume that maybe you are a product of the Eucharist, which prayed over one way becomes a Catholic baby, and prayed over another becomes the hunk of dead Jew meat you communally consume in your cannibal rituals? This trans-biological origination certainly sheds light of the historical Catholic contempt for human life for those of us who come into the world through the blood and water of the old animal way.

“No Allah: know peace”

Since: Jun 07

A sacred grove in Tujunga, CA

#553 Jan 23, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Pro-homosexual. Short for a person that is a homosexual and supports homosexuality and or, a person that is not a homosexual that supports homosexuality. I really needed to explain that?
Many kids are "urged" by both written/printed material from LGBT sources in middle schools and high schools to "be themselves". There are posters, pamphlets, videos on dvds to be watched, all guiding children to become something that mature adults have a hard time surviving.
By the time they reach middle school, almost everybody has a pretty good idea of their sexual orientation, so of course they should be encouraged to be themselves, since that is the only thing they are ever going to be. If people could choose, why would anyone ever choose to be gay? Especially in the past, when prejudice was even worse, NO ONE would have ever chosen to be gay, yet throughout history, there have been gays.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#554 Jan 23, 2013
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
.... Jesus certainly did speak against homosexuality in Matt 5:32 and 19:9 where He uses the word "unchastity" and "immorality" which includes adultery, incest, premarital infidelity, homosexuality, bestiality and any other sexual conduct condemned in the OT.
It's YOUR OPINION that being gay is included in that list.

But the words are not coming from the mouth of Jesus. They are coming form your belief and your mind.

There is a difference.

If gay people are to be condemned from birth if they choose the SAME lifestyles that straight folks do, for a god-given "sin" they did not choose and cannot change, then your version of god is quite sick.

Why would you follow such a creature?
Jeff

San Jose, CA

#555 Jan 23, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Huh?
No, but two men can both be husbands and two women can both be wives.
Get it? Pretty simple.
You point out the nonsense with this. A marriage involves a man and a woman. The man is a husband and can only be a husband by definition. A man can never be a wife. Get it. Pretty simple.

“No Allah: know peace”

Since: Jun 07

A sacred grove in Tujunga, CA

#556 Jan 23, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't realize how illogical your thinking is. You think it logical to blame a tithing member of the Mormon church for a gay child's death by suicide?
That "church" prompts no one to kill themselves. That's just an out right vicious statement made out of anger and stupidity.
No. it is a statement of fact. By trying to claim that there is something wrong with homosexuality, it is telling gay kids that there is something wrong with them. And since most of these kids already feel bad for being different from most of their peers, suicide becomes a more attractive po0ssibility. A church does not need to tell them "you should kill yourself" to be blamed for the child's suicide.

“No Allah: know peace”

Since: Jun 07

A sacred grove in Tujunga, CA

#557 Jan 23, 2013
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
No it is not. The gay movement is based on sex preferences. That is all it is.
Wrong, yet again...

The gay movement is based on sexual orientation, which is as immutable as skin color.

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#558 Jan 23, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Mixed race marriages were not (and are not) the norm for any society.
The sexual activities of homosexuals are also done by heterosexuals, so are you against allowing heterosexual couples to marry if they practice cunnilingus, fellatio, and/or anal sex? Would you allow same-sex couples to marry if they are celibate? We allow inter-racial marriage despite its place as a deviation from the norm. Nothing you said same-sex couples do is off-limits to heterosexual couples, and you surely don't see "not the norm" as a reason to prohibit particular marriages. It sounds like you're simply against marriage.
Very concise and correct comment, Doll, and I can only add that there is a very sexualy frusterated lady in Tony's future if sex for him is something that is perfomed only within those peak hours of monthly fertility and only a matter of insertion and ejaculation to comply with some religious fertility mandate. If you haven't had a tongue session on your womyn that at the end of it you look like someone hit you in the face with a pie tin of Ready Whip, then you haven't done your job, and you have no real understanding of the majority reason of why people have sex.

“No Allah: know peace”

Since: Jun 07

A sacred grove in Tujunga, CA

#559 Jan 23, 2013
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
A man lying with another man is what is forbidden. It doesn't matter what you call it.
1) There is no evidence that supports your claim that that is what Paul was talking about.

2) Paul does not get to invent new sins. The Bible is very clear that all sins were defined in the Torah and that it is a sin to add to or subtract from that list.

“No Allah: know peace”

Since: Jun 07

A sacred grove in Tujunga, CA

#560 Jan 23, 2013
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
The Bible condemns the practice of homosexuality in every place its mentioned. Jesus certainly did speak against homosexuality in Matt 5:32 and 19:9 where He uses the word "unchastity" and "immorality" which includes adultery, incest, premarital infidelity, homosexuality, bestiality and any other sexual conduct condemned in the OT.
See above...
Jeff

San Jose, CA

#561 Jan 23, 2013
Liam R wrote:
<quoted text>
1) There is no evidence that supports your claim that that is what Paul was talking about.
2) Paul does not get to invent new sins. The Bible is very clear that all sins were defined in the Torah and that it is a sin to add to or subtract from that list.
1) Of course there is evidence. Lets look at Romans 1:26-27
"For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error."
This is a description of homosexual sexual practices.

2) Paul speaks with authority of Christ and so can tell us what sin is. Its as if Christ Himself was speaking.

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#562 Jan 23, 2013
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
You point out the nonsense with this. A marriage involves a man and a woman. The man is a husband and can only be a husband by definition. A man can never be a wife. Get it. Pretty simple.
"husband" and "wife" are outdated nomenclature that really should be dispensed with that simply harken back to a time of a rigid division of roles expressions and expectations that don't hold in our society. Men stay home and are domestic while wymyn have careers and visa versa; hopefully in a partnership with two people working outside the home the labor within the home is shared. I don't know very many wymyn that are the "wives" in the sense the traditional baggage associated with it, or "husbands" either. So being hung up over some effete terminology is a pretty ridiculous exclusion point.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#563 Jan 23, 2013
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
No its not. A marriage is really only between a man and a woman. No man can be a wife.
If you deny that tree is in front of your car, it will still wreck your car when you hit it.

You don't get to define my marriage. It's here whether you like it or not. You can deny it all you want, but we're still married.

Choke on that.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#564 Jan 23, 2013
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
I understand enough of this same sex nonsense to know its not healthy.
Straight people obsessing over it on a message board is not healthy.

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 What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 11 min No Surprise 8,398
News Our recommendation: Springboro voters should sa... (Feb '08) 1 hr huh 32,016
News ACT's first same sex newlyweds worry postal sur... 2 hr Carmine 1
News Space ship found in ice, Hillary's boozing, and... 11 hr Tex- 19
News UK's first lesbian interfaith wedding Fri Wholly Silicon Wafer 3
News Archbishop enters gay marriage debate Fri Wholly Silicon Wafer 2
News ACT Chief Minister Andrew Barr to actively camp... Thu Wallace 3
More from around the web