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.

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#589 Jan 23, 2013
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
You must be on something to say "husband" and "wife" are outdated nomenclature.." Get serious. These are the ways we have always thought of these things. No, these titles are not going away. What nonsense.
So Darling, outside your idea of the gender applied to those words, what is uniquely attatched to those labels that qualifies them as necessary to make a distinction in the functioning of a partnership? I understand that "this is the way we've always done it", but how does that give it value if the things they used to stand for are no longer applicable, and if the distinction in roles can no longer be made why are they useful to you? This is all subjective I know that, and I'm not saying you are wrong if in your relationship you want to make those distinctions. If fact I think that's all part of the greater message our community is trying to make to the straight community: in the end we all have the right to define our relationships/marriages in the terms and ways that have the most meaning for us individually and as consenting partners. It's not up to me to tell you that you can't call your mate "wife" (husband) and the reciprocal term and load that with whatever expectations of each other in those roles that you agree to; in fact it is totally up to you to define your marriages/relationships exclusively in the terms of your choosing- That defines marriage equality. Trust me, I'm just hopefully having a friendly chat with you about your particular point of view, not to pick apart what you do and how you feel about it.

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#590 Jan 23, 2013
NoQ wrote:
<quoted text>
It's been proven the lesbians have sex with animals, usually their dog,to get sexual gratification because they can't stand to be with a man. What kind of dog does you, bitc.h????
One constant post-no surprise, since you only have one brain cell to work with.

Okay Puppy I noticed you.

“ ILKS r kewl ”

Since: Apr 09

Conch republic

#591 Jan 23, 2013
Jeff wrote:
2) Paul speaks with authority of Christ and so can tell us what sin is. Its as if Christ Himself was speaking.
Oh I get it now.. The bible is the "inerrant word of god" but Paul speaks with the authority.. I thought you said the bible is the "word of God".. Hmmmm, I guess then that makes Paul God huh? Hmmmm
Lets all start worshiping Paul since PAUL said it.. not God.
Ya'll are so messed up in the head that next you'll be saying the dog next door is God. Or the snail in the backyard.. or OMG GW Bush!

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#592 Jan 23, 2013
Liam R wrote:
1 Samuel celebrates the marriage of David and Johnathan.,
I'll differ with you on the basis of what the Jewish writings "don't make possible".
No where in any Jewuish writing that exists from Moses or any prophet/teacher/mystic/rabbi etc, no where does it exist that a Israelite male was given a right by God to be married to a wife(s) and to be married to a husband at the same time.
For you to believe that two married Israelite males, married to one or more wives can also be married to a male husband, and that God is well with it, it is up to you to show that what you believe is more than an opinion.

“ ILKS r kewl ”

Since: Apr 09

Conch republic

#593 Jan 23, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Fricking ignorant moron..lol.
I thought YOU were the frickin ignorant mormon......

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#594 Jan 23, 2013
Liam R wrote:
<quoted text>
He may have loved women, but he loved Johnathan more than any women...
2 Samuel 1:26 ...thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.
Singularly it can be interpreted as such I agree. But in context it takes a different meaning.

26 I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother;
you were very dear to me.
Your love for me was wonderful,
more wonderful than that of women.

Do note that David is speaking of a difference of love he has felt from women to the love he felt from Jonathan.
The million dollar question is, was David speaking of a brotherly spiritual love two men can experience that love the same God and worship that God daily in righteousness by obedience to the commandments or, was David speaking of a romantic love Jonathan had for David like the romantic love David had by evidence for Bathsheba? A love so deep and so strong he had her husband killed so he could have her for his own wife?
When anyone wishes to believe this was a romantic love between David and Jonathan, they have to be ready to explain where in Jewish scripture/writing or even in just custom/tradition, where Israelites allowed a man to be married to another man while being married to one or more wives.
Show proof of that and you have a strong case for David and Jonathan being married.
Jeff

San Jose, CA

#596 Jan 23, 2013
RubyTheDyke wrote:
<quoted text>
So Darling, outside your idea of the gender applied to those words, what is uniquely attatched to those labels that qualifies them as necessary to make a distinction in the functioning of a partnership? I understand that "this is the way we've always done it", but how does that give it value if the things they used to stand for are no longer applicable, and if the distinction in roles can no longer be made why are they useful to you? This is all subjective I know that, and I'm not saying you are wrong if in your relationship you want to make those distinctions. If fact I think that's all part of the greater message our community is trying to make to the straight community: in the end we all have the right to define our relationships/marriages in the terms and ways that have the most meaning for us individually and as consenting partners. It's not up to me to tell you that you can't call your mate "wife" (husband) and the reciprocal term and load that with whatever expectations of each other in those roles that you agree to; in fact it is totally up to you to define your marriages/relationships exclusively in the terms of your choosing- That defines marriage equality. Trust me, I'm just hopefully having a friendly chat with you about your particular point of view, not to pick apart what you do and how you feel about it.
My point is that words have meaning and to think we can change them arbitrarily is problematic. Our society is infected with this kind of crazy thinking that we think we can redefine things on a whim. This is how the Nazi's were able to kill so many in the holocaust. They convinced many that the Jews were sub human. We see this with slavery and abortion. Just redefine what terms mean and all kinds of evil is possible.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#598 Jan 23, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Fricking ignorant moron..lol.
I have no doubt you would have been one of the true pathetic morons screaming at people that used the word "ain't" to quit because it wasn't a word and never would be a word. Well "Google it" and "surf the web" aren't any more correct phrases to your moronic thinking than "deep seeded" and "deep seeded" has been used for decades as a phrase. An idiot beyond belief..lol.
Some comments from the web you'll love to hate I'm sure :)
Deep-seeded vs. deep-seated
Deep-seeded almost makes sense in a metaphorical way (though seeds sown too deeply won’t grow), but deep-seated is the term you’re looking for. The phrasal adjective (usually requiring a hyphen) simply indicates that something is seated (in the sense fixed firmly in place) deeply in something else. The OED defines it as having its seat far beneath the surface.
.....
« It’s All About CommunicationQuestions On My Mind »
Deep Seated vs Deep Seeded
August 13, 2007 by dave
So last week I used the term “deep seeded” in my post about the first lady writing a children’s book.
Well bad Dave, no cookie, the term is actually “deep seated”
According to some of the sites that I’ve read the incorrect term started getting usage because of American pronunciation trends and that currently 4% of the people out there today think that “deep seeded” is the correct term.
Now my hearing sucks, my wife will be the first one to tell you this. As a matter of fact I bet she’s told me this but I just didn’t hear her. Ok, who am I kidding … I wasn’t listening.
But anyway, I think the reason I always used “deep seeded” is because it always made so much more sense to me. When farming, seeds are sown at a certain level because if you plant them too deeply, they don’t get enough warmth from the sun and will not sprout. So to me a “deep seeded” need would be a desperate need for something that was never going to be met.
I’ve only used the term myself when talking about unfulfilled needs too. Never in something like a “deep seeded” hatred for someone, because I never thought the term applied correctly.
....
January 20, 2005
DEEP-SEEDED IGNORANCE
According to a Jan. 19 Fox News story from Houston about how "[a]n application form to join a parochial schools group that was sent to Texas Islamic schools has created misunderstanding and anger between local Muslims and Christians",
Iesa Galloway, Houston Executive Director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (search) said the questionnaire was "rooted in deep-seeded ignorance of the religion of Islam and the Muslim people."
For most Americans, "deep-seeded" is pronounced exactly the same way as "deep-seated", due to (what linguists call) flapping and voicing of /t/ in words like seated, as in many other contexts (e.g. in fatter and rabbiting and at all, but not in attack). And in terms of the current ordinary-language meaning of the words involved, "deep-seeded ignorance" makes sense, while "deep-seated ignorance" doesn't. Ignorance can be planted deep and thus have deep metaphorical roots, but deep-seated ignorance would have to be ignorance cut with a lot of room in the crotch, or maybe ignorance sitting in a badly-designed armchair.
I just had to hold this up to all of you as an example of what you are dealing with here.

This person actually posted references of his own free will which proved he was wrong, and then gloated as if he was right.

It's an incredible display of astonishing idiocy.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#601 Jan 23, 2013
NoQ wrote:
<quoted text>
Have you had a DlCK up your A$$ today, Fa$$ot?? You can enjoy your favorite treat, Shit on a Dick. Your own sh:t. LMFAO
As you have proven that you live with your head up yours, you get yours straight from the source. It's not my fault you are so hideous that no woman will ever have any thing to do with you. Most prefer to go out with human beings.

I do have to wonder how many donkeys your mother screwed to create a jackass like you.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#602 Jan 23, 2013
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
My point is that words have meaning and to think we can change them arbitrarily is problematic. Our society is infected with this kind of crazy thinking that we think we can redefine things on a whim. This is how the Nazi's were able to kill so many in the holocaust. They convinced many that the Jews were sub human. We see this with slavery and abortion. Just redefine what terms mean and all kinds of evil is possible.
It's not the gay people trying to stop who you can build a life with. It is you trying to stop them. They are not in your business.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#603 Jan 23, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
You're so fricking absolutely pathetic. Can't you at least get the quote correct? That was a statement a single elder made to a son going on a mission. But your usual good, kind, truthful, loving Christian persona would rather lie than state a truth, and declare all Mormon parents make that same statement to all their sons and daughters 24/7 huh. Fricking fake *ssed Christian lol.
'I'd rather see you come home in a casket than to see you come home unclean.... Elder Legrand Richards,“Conference Report”, October 1952, p.93 ...
I love how you added the lie "24/7". No one made that claim, but that statement is one of the most quoted statements in Mormonism. The only person lying here is you, in every post. Now why is that? Why is it you can't debate from an honest position? It is a demonstration you know how wrong you are. And my, oh my, how you use to cry buckets of tears about my language, and now you're being such a potty mouth yourself. "Signs of an ignorant person, that is." - A famous Jedi Master.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#604 Jan 23, 2013
Tony C wrote:
<quoted text>
I just had to hold this up to all of you as an example of what you are dealing with here.
This person actually posted references of his own free will which proved he was wrong, and then gloated as if he was right.
It's an incredible display of astonishing idiocy.
Trust me, I know what you are feeling. I've been dealing with this clown for over 6 months.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#605 Jan 23, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Just for clarification you did state that. Your bud nomo stated that. You and nomo stated that for many, many posts a while back. Memory biting at you again?
Just for clarification, no I didn't, and I don't believe NoMo has either. But feel free to prove me wrong. I'll wait.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#606 Jan 23, 2013
Liam R wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
If a child has only same sex feelings or only has opposite sex feelings, I'll agree. But those children at that early age that have no doubt of "whom" they're attracted to, I would wager are a minority in the percentile compared to those that would honestly state they are unsure of their attraction.
Even Freud found out in his research that the larger percent of adults admitted to being attracted to both sexes. It was the basis of his reasoning that we are all born bisexual first, because he found so many stated in childhood they experienced both sex
attractions and not just one.
Fifty years ago children weren't encouraged to be their sexual orientation. Fifty years ago, statistics for suicides (no matter why the suicide happened) among children were very low.
Fifty years later we have a specific group of children, being encouraged to "be their sexual attraction" that have a suicide rate that is all their own.
This suicide group didn't exist at one time. It didn't exist because common sense dictated to broad cast one was same sex affiliated was to bring on a lot of hard ships. So in the quest of LGBT to find fairness and equality among heterosexuals, children are dying in that quest for justifiable sexual equality.
I think the children should have been left out of that quest is my opinion.
If a child needs help dealing with their sexual attraction, there are many resources in our day and age to help them without the neighbourhood and community knowing about it. The sexual attraction issues any child faces should be private, not public.
The LGBT have made sexual attraction such a public matter that concerning children, caution and common sense has been tossed to the four winds in most instances and their suffering for it.

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#607 Jan 23, 2013
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
My point is that words have meaning and to think we can change them arbitrarily is problematic. Our society is infected with this kind of crazy thinking that we think we can redefine things on a whim. This is how the Nazi's were able to kill so many in the holocaust. They convinced many that the Jews were sub human. We see this with slavery and abortion. Just redefine what terms mean and all kinds of evil is possible.
I understand what you're saying- what's the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter? The words and their meaning, and whether in application they have the same result the words we use to define it and provides the context of how we think of the act. That's why from my point of view I feel more comfortable using non-desigantion words to identify my parnter, and was wondering the significance, other than merely traditional, the terms "husband" and "wife" mean to you.

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#608 Jan 23, 2013
oops-forgot to add that perhaps it's time for new words to describe two in a legal marriage as the old words simply don't apply in the manner they used to

“Darwin died for your sins”

Since: Aug 08

Nunya

#609 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.
They said the same thing about miscegenation. I proved with numerous posts with citations. I'm guessing you replied to this post prior to reading the rest of my posts. So Jeff, how does it feel to get outed as the bigoted racists that you are?

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#610 Jan 23, 2013
WoW wrote:
<quoted text>Nothing homosexual will ever really be a marriage. Homosexual 'marriage' is a complete fraud.
It has been overwhelmingly rejected by homosexuals as an actual practice in every country that allows it, and studies have shown that most such 'marriages' aren't even exclusive arrangements.
No homosexual relationship shares the reasons for government involvement in real marriage. No child is ever born as a direct result and no such relationship can provide a child with a father and mother. Homosexual 'marriage,' where legal, isn't even a basic building block of homosexual society, much less of society as a whole. There is no standardized format for homosexual 'marriages,' and no economically unequal genders are involved.
Why not forget about disenfranchising others in order for force your concocted, failed philosophy into law? Why not try a little live and let live?
1: Homosexuality isn't a philosophy, any more than being Hungarian is.
2: What do you mean by "standardized format?" Last I checked, it was two adults of legal age who have decided to marry. What more is involved?
3: Why should heterosexual couples who won't/can't have children be allowed to marry?
4: What do you think "disenfranchise" means? HINT: Whatever you think it means, you're wrong.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#611 Jan 23, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
If a child has only same sex feelings or only has opposite sex feelings, I'll agree. But those children at that early age that have no doubt of "whom" they're attracted to, I would wager are a minority in the percentile compared to those that would honestly state they are unsure of their attraction.
Even Freud found out in his research that the larger percent of adults admitted to being attracted to both sexes. It was the basis of his reasoning that we are all born bisexual first, because he found so many stated in childhood they experienced both sex
attractions and not just one.
Fifty years ago children weren't encouraged to be their sexual orientation. Fifty years ago, statistics for suicides (no matter why the suicide happened) among children were very low.
Fifty years later we have a specific group of children, being encouraged to "be their sexual attraction" that have a suicide rate that is all their own.
This suicide group didn't exist at one time. It didn't exist because common sense dictated to broad cast one was same sex affiliated was to bring on a lot of hard ships. So in the quest of LGBT to find fairness and equality among heterosexuals, children are dying in that quest for justifiable sexual equality.
I think the children should have been left out of that quest is my opinion.
If a child needs help dealing with their sexual attraction, there are many resources in our day and age to help them without the neighbourhood and community knowing about it. The sexual attraction issues any child faces should be private, not public.
The LGBT have made sexual attraction such a public matter that concerning children, caution and common sense has been tossed to the four winds in most instances and their suffering for it.
Yep. Suicides among homosexuals may have been lower. What was the death rate of homosexuals as a result of what would today be deemed "hate crimes?" While we're at it, why don't we look at how pervasive and constant bullying can be today versus 50 years ago. Today, it's potentially impossible to avoid 24/7 bullying via e-mail, text message, facebook, twitter, youtube, etc. 50 Years ago, you'd either get bullied at school, on your way to school, or on your way home. A few hours per day versus every waking hour. A couple hundred people being aware of your victimhood then versus tens of thousands, even millions being aware of your victimhood today.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#612 Jan 23, 2013
Liam R wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Suicide takes place after many, many things happen to a person. Many people suffer the same exact traumas in childhood concerning homosexuality and only a minute percentage resort to suicide.
So if the negative comments from just the family (as is being stated here) to a child concerning homosexuality causes them to commit suicide three weeks or thirty years later, than the opposite would have to also be true. That the child who suffers negative comments from just the family concerning homosexuality and lives to an old natural death, it could also be stated they lived that long due to the negative comments that caused them to be stronger than those that committed suicide.
Both points are illogical to find direct ties to a person's suicide.
Many things happen before a person chooses suicide. Negative comments from family don't help, but their not the cause. Research has shown rejection by community and one's society at large are the biggest reasons for suicide among homosexuals. Not the comments a family makes.

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 Al Sharpton: Royal Wedding Shows 'Last Breath' ... 10 min BOSS KING MOSES 196
News For Some African-Americans, Meghan Markle Is Ca... 4 hr Obamamichelle Hus... 8
News Meet the Canadians lining up along Harry and Me... 15 hr Walter 1
News Start Chatting And Dating Beautiful Ukrainian W... (Sep '14) Sat Zeppelin 6
News Royal Wedding: 'Beverly Hills' pumped for its p... Fri Concerned White 14
News Doria Ragland and her daughter Meghan Markle Thu Satan 21
News 'The blackest moment in global pop culture sinc... May 24 GeezAlready 3