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.

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#7337 Feb 21, 2013
Tony C wrote:
<quoted text>
You're really stupid.
Clearly the intent is usually different when a black person calls another black person the n word, or a gay person calls another gay person the f word, or a woman calls another woman a bitch.
In fact, these are usually terms of familiarity and affection when used among like people.
How do you not know that?
My (white) bf calls me the N word. As you say, when he uses it, it's a term of familiarity and affection. And since it's so taboo in general, it's also a sign of intimacy.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#7338 Feb 21, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
If you don't realize that Canada and the USA have different constitutions, you have bigger problems than gay marriage.
Ministers are not required to marry ANYBODY in the USA. Our government does not and never has told any church what they can preach or teach. Have you completely forgotten about the first amendment? Or are you another one of those idiots that think there's no such thing as separation of church and State? Maybe your little scaredy-cat church friends respond to your fear-mongering lies, but I know better.
Idiocy never sees possible/probable possibilities.
Yes, of course Canada and US have different constitutions. That was a waste of time to mention on your part.
Comparisons. Do you understand comparisons? It seems you don't.
Canadian and US constitutions both at one time allowed ministers to teach/preach as they wished concerning same sex marriage. That is called a similarity of a comparison between two different constitutions that were allowing of the same thing to happen.
Neither government at one time allowed same sex marriage. That is called a similarity of these two different governments having the same laws against same sex marriage. Do you understand?
Now we have one government that has made same sex marriage legal. The other government could be said is following the footsteps of that government as it is slowly allowing more and more laws for same sex marriage.
At one time both governments allowed religious ministers to decide who they would marry and who they wouldn't.
Now one of the governments has forced religious ministers to marry both hetero and same sex marriages.
There's a pattern there. And you ignorantly wish not to see it.
Those in the US government aren't there because their stupid. Many politicians have grown into their positions knowing they don't have to pass laws for religions at all. All they have to do is pass a law that goes against what religions teach and preach and out of fear of community reprisal, religious ministers will be forced by community opinion to stop teaching/preaching what now is for the law or is against the law.
Did you know polygamy is a religious doctrine? Did you know that in making it's ruling against polygamy, Scotus reflected on who and what used/endorsed prohibited/outlawed polygamy all the way back to when it was outlawed in ancient Rome? Do you know that part of their reasoning for outlawing the religious practice of polygamy was based on ancient RCC outlawing polygamy? They surmised if Christianity would reject an actual religious practice that went back for thousands of years, they had grounds to make laws against it.
SCOTUS said screw you to the first amendment right of religion that should have covered polygamy as well as it covered monogamy. Get it?
Since than, SCOTUS has never again DIRECTLY defined religious freedom and what it encompasses and what it doesn't.
Canada is a parallel example to the US of what these two governments have done side by side concerning religious freedom and restricting/allowing it.
If you don't see that well to each their own :)

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#7339 Feb 21, 2013
dollarsbill wrote:
<quoted text>
It gives you an opportunity to prove your anti Bible beliefs.
The buy-bull indicates the earth is flat.
It claims there were day and night, and plants growing before there was a sun.
Next.

“No Allah: know peace”

Since: Jun 07

A sacred grove in Tujunga, CA

#7340 Feb 21, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
If you're speaking of the Christian Bible,
I would say that there is only one Bible...
No Surprise wrote:
if specifically denotes a difference between God the Father and his son Jesus who is a God by birth right and an angel that is referred to as the god of 'evil' and the god of this world.
2 Corinthians 4:4
English Standard Version (ESV)
4 In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.
1) Paul is not part of the Bible, so his opinions are not relevant.

2) Calling an angel a god does not make that angle a God.

3) The Bible makes it clear that all evil comes only from the God of the Bible.
No Surprise wrote:
In the OT there are many verses that speak of the existence of 'many gods' that God was jealous of. Tough to be jealous of gods that don't exist, know what I mean?
A point that I frequently make...

Then too, there are separate commandments forbidding the worship of false gods and of other Gods.
No Surprise wrote:
Than we have the god called Satan/Lucifer who using his 'godly' powers takes Jesus on a few trips here and there showing him his power and what he's willing to share and give to Jesus if he will just bow to him. Once again, kind of tough for a god to offer to God what already belongs to God unless he had given it away for a period of time.
Or it never happened and was merely a later addition to enhance the Jesus myth.
No Surprise wrote:
And in Revelations we have that explicit thing having happened. God gave this earth to not only be Satan's prison, but to be his own world till further notice.
Again,in terms of what the Bible says, this would be extreme blasphemy.
No Surprise wrote:
And even twice it was written in the OT and NT,'..is it not written that ye are gods..?
And one of these days I will have time to do a thorough linguistic exploration of that verse in Psalms. I am curious to know the full implications of it in its original language.
No Surprise wrote:
You may not wish to believe in Satan and that's fine. But the Christian Bible is alive and well with a bad dude named Satan and is known for his negative, evil designs on humanity, just saying :)
And the Koran is alive and well with a bad dude named Shaitan, and the Icelandic Sagas are alive and well with a bad dude named Loki, etc, etc, etc. Harry Potter has Voldemort.

The point that I keep coming back to is that the NT contradicts the Bible, therefore it does not really matter what it says, it is obviously not part of the corpus of lore central to the God of the Bible.

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#7341 Feb 21, 2013
Liam R wrote:
<quoted text>
Prayers will not save you from Hel: if you do not die in battle with a sword in your hand, Odin will never accept you into Valhalla.
Whenever I hear/see the word "Valhalla", the "Immigrant Song" stats to play in my head.

We come from the land of the ice and snow
from the midnight sun where the hot springs blow

The hammer of the gods will drive our ships to new lands
To fight the horde and sing and cry, Valhalla, I am coming...

“No Allah: know peace”

Since: Jun 07

A sacred grove in Tujunga, CA

#7342 Feb 21, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
You can believe Jonathan and David were married as a man and woman marry till your dying breath and that is fine as far as opinions go.
But unfortunately when you want to make an opinion from the Bible, evidence is nice to have.
In this case, you lack evidence to show a man so righteous and faithful with his God, that he would first marry a man and than obey God's command to marry a woman. You lack evidence to show the God he loved and adored, gave a commandment/law for Israelite men to have a choice of not only being married to a woman, but they could also than marry a man at the same time.
So your opinion remains that and nothing more.
Except that I have repeatedly posted just that. Men were allowed to have multiple spouses, therefore there is nothing prohibiting one of those spouses from being another man. There are no legitimate translations of any verse that condemns homosexuality. only the consorting with the (male) temple prostitutes of a foreign Goddess.

“No Allah: know peace”

Since: Jun 07

A sacred grove in Tujunga, CA

#7343 Feb 21, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Fricking idiot...lol.
Let's go over some things you're oblivious to in which a law didn't demand a minister to not teach/preach a topic, but the change of law affecting US citizens caused the ministers to quit preaching what they once believed in shall we?
How many US Christian religions can you find for me that still teach and preach the God given right to accept or reject the following. Supply the name of the Christian religion and minister. Please exclude out right practising racists like the KKK, the Aryan Brotherhood, the Black Panthers etc.
List for me 'normal' society accepted Christian religions that still teach and believe in the right to own slaves, to have segregation and discrimination among the races, preach against interracial marriage.
I'll save you the time of responding.'Normal' run of the mill Christian religions that once preached all these things as a persons right to be for or against, they keep their traps shut and don't say a word now. Why? Because laws were made to legalize or make illegal all those things mentioned. Ministers don't preach a right to own slaves, they don't preach the white man right to segregation and discrimination, they don't teach interracial marriages are wrong and not of God. Laws for those things made them shut their traps for fear of having the hostility of their community. But no law was ever enacted against those religions themselves to stop teaching/preaching what they had taught for centuries.
In Canada ministers had the freedom of religion to marry or not marry same sex couples at one time. Even after Canada allowed same sex marriage and homosexual rights, ministers could still refuse to wed same sex couples. Now a law demands that if you're a religious minister and can legally wed couples, as a minister in Canada they now by law HAVE TO WED OPPOSITE SEX AND SAME SEX COUPLES.
And you don't think that won't happen here in the US? lolol.... people use to claim the US government and or state governments would never allow same sex marriages....lolol....
Canada does not have the same constitution as we do in the US. We have a Constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of religion, and a long history of SCOTUS decisions backing that right that will prevent any such law from ever being constitutional.

“No Allah: know peace”

Since: Jun 07

A sacred grove in Tujunga, CA

#7344 Feb 21, 2013
Sola Scriptura wrote:
<quoted text>
I couldn't care less about your religion. I am a Christian and Christianity is NOT a religion. If you ever can begin to understand that you MIGHT start seeing the big picture.
And YOU need to understand that the dictionary definition of religion INCLUDES christianity, whether you like it or not. Then you might be able to begin to grasp the fact that there is a much bigger picture that you are so desperately trying to pretend doesn't exist...

“No Allah: know peace”

Since: Jun 07

A sacred grove in Tujunga, CA

#7345 Feb 21, 2013
Romans Road wrote:
<quoted text>
REAL Christianity is a personal relationship with Christ Jesus.....being born again into the family of God........being forgiven from all of our sins and made righteous through the shed BLOOD of Jesus.........we are saved children of the living God......
TRUE Christianity is not a "religion" at all.
REAL Astaru is having a personal relationship with the Norse Gods...accepting the mantle of responsibility for one's own life...fighting (symbolically or literally) to make the world a better place...shedding the blood of one's enemies.. we are all children of the Allfather...TRUE Astaru is not a "religion" at all.

“No Allah: know peace”

Since: Jun 07

A sacred grove in Tujunga, CA

#7346 Feb 21, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Whenever I hear/see the word "Valhalla", the "Immigrant Song" stats to play in my head.
We come from the land of the ice and snow
from the midnight sun where the hot springs blow
The hammer of the gods will drive our ships to new lands
To fight the horde and sing and cry, Valhalla, I am coming...
http://www.prometheus-music.com/avalon.html
Listen to the song "Berserker"...

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#7347 Feb 21, 2013
Liam R wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.prometheus-music.com/avalon.html
Listen to the song "Berserker"...
Ah, very nice. A song that gets into your blood.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#7348 Feb 21, 2013
Liam R wrote:
<quoted text>
I would say that there is only one Bible...
<quoted text>
1) Paul is not part of the Bible, so his opinions are not relevant.
2) Calling an angel a god does not make that angle a God.
3) The Bible makes it clear that all evil comes only from the God of the Bible.
<quoted text>
A point that I frequently make...
Then too, there are separate commandments forbidding the worship of false gods and of other Gods.
<quoted text>
Or it never happened and was merely a later addition to enhance the Jesus myth.
<quoted text>
Again,in terms of what the Bible says, this would be extreme blasphemy.
<quoted text>
And one of these days I will have time to do a thorough linguistic exploration of that verse in Psalms. I am curious to know the full implications of it in its original language.
<quoted text>
And the Koran is alive and well with a bad dude named Shaitan, and the Icelandic Sagas are alive and well with a bad dude named Loki, etc, etc, etc. Harry Potter has Voldemort.
The point that I keep coming back to is that the NT contradicts the Bible, therefore it does not really matter what it says, it is obviously not part of the corpus of lore central to the God of the Bible.
I suppose I could do as you and decide which books in the Bible aren't cannon and which are as you have done. But to debate the Bible, it is wise to debate the books that are in and have been accepted as cannon even if you're in disagreement, just saying.
Next, Paul was a persecutor of Jesus and his gang. Paul admitted that. For all we know Paul could have been one of the priests that were involved in the framing of Jesus and sending him to prison.
So it could well be for his persecutions of Jesus and his gang, that Paul might have had a better understanding of Jesus's doctrines/teachings than maybe Jesus's own disciples had an understanding of.
That said, you can't logically exclude what Paul had to say of Jesus and his teachings just because he became a witness after the death of Jesus when debating what is contained in the Bible. I mean you can do that but it isn't logical unless all of Paul's words have actually been excluded from the Christian Bible. And they haven't been.

“No Allah: know peace”

Since: Jun 07

A sacred grove in Tujunga, CA

#7349 Feb 21, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
I suppose I could do as you and decide which books in the Bible aren't cannon and which are as you have done. But to debate the Bible, it is wise to debate the books that are in and have been accepted as cannon even if you're in disagreement, just saying.
But that can be like debating Harry Potter by reading from Hunger Games.
No Surprise wrote:
Next, Paul was a persecutor of Jesus and his gang. Paul admitted that. For all we know Paul could have been one of the priests that were involved in the framing of Jesus and sending him to prison.
Pure supposition, there is no evidence of that.
No Surprise wrote:
So it could well be for his persecutions of Jesus and his gang, that Paul might have had a better understanding of Jesus's doctrines/teachings than maybe Jesus's own disciples had an understanding of.
Ah, no. That would be ridiculous. His disciples were with him for the entirety of his teachings,whereas Paul never met Jesus and started teaching christianity before he met any of the disciples.
No Surprise wrote:
That said, you can't logically exclude what Paul had to say of Jesus and his teachings just because he became a witness after the death of Jesus when debating what is contained in the Bible. I mean you can do that but it isn't logical unless all of Paul's words have actually been excluded from the Christian Bible. And they haven't been.
The "christian" Bible is irrelevant. Paul contradicts what is in the Bible, therefore he was not inspired by the God of the Bible. At best, he had faulty opinions. At worst, he was a false prophet, deliberately leading people away from the God of the Bible.

Seriously, think about it. The Bible repeatedly states, in no uncertain terms, that the Laws of Moses are to be followed for ever. Jesus repeats this. Paul says "Oh, no... its okay to just ignore those, they are old fashioned and out of date. God didn't mean that for ever was supposed to be for ever, for ever just means for a little while until something better comes along."

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#7350 Feb 21, 2013
Liam R wrote:
<quoted text>
Except that I have repeatedly posted just that. Men were allowed to have multiple spouses, therefore there is nothing prohibiting one of those spouses from being another man. There are no legitimate translations of any verse that condemns homosexuality. only the consorting with the (male) temple prostitutes of a foreign Goddess.
You're going to have to give me as un-biased of one or more links as you possibly can to this information that Israelite men could have multiple spouses as in men and women. I have read much on Jews and polygamy and have read they could have five wives or more if they could afford it.
But I haven't seen just the word "spouses" used by rabbis in their translations of older languages the OT came down through when speaking of polygamous marriages. Wife and wives are used. And they usually denote the female of the human specie, not the male.
I understand a want to read into the Bible what isn't there. I have done it at times in different discussions but I make sure to state this is my opinion.
The Bible never once validates a same sex romantic relationship to the capacity that people wish to believe exists in the Bible. Only once is it written in the OT of God stating what relationship he expected of humans and for why. It had nothing to do with prejudice or bias etc.
According to the Bible (and according to science) a female and a male came to be for the purpose of multiplying the human specie. According to the Bible, God created it that way for his own purpose. He could have made us all a-sexual so at a point of time in our lives, each of us could give birth to off spring without the need of a partner.
But it isn't that way. According to the Bible, God created a man and a woman so they would be one flesh(intercourse)and multiply more of themselves so spirits would have a body to take possession of and use. He gave that as a commandment.
He left it up to us to obey that commandment or to not obey it regardless of attraction and or sexual orientation.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#7351 Feb 21, 2013
Liam R wrote:
<quoted text>
Canada does not have the same constitution as we do in the US. We have a Constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of religion, and a long history of SCOTUS decisions backing that right that will prevent any such law from ever being constitutional.
I never said Canada's and the USA's constitutions are the same. Never said any such thing.
I said there were 'one time similarities' concerning their 'freedom of religion' and our 'freedom of religion' laws. I never said they were the same. Never said any such thing.

SCOTUS decided that polygamy didn't fall under the first amendment even though it had been and was than and still is now a religious practice for at least the past three thousand years. The Bible dates it back to the time of Adam and Eve while they were still alive. Scotus used evidence of Christianity rejecting polygamy in making it's ruling. Thus SCOTUS did in fact step on a first amendment constitutional religious right.
I took the following from the web as it's an interesting read.
..
So why is polygamy illegal? Why don’t Mormons have the right to enter into multiple marriages sanctified by their church, if not the state? There’s a short answer to this question but not a very good one: polygamy is illegal and unprotected by the Constitution because the Supreme Court doesn’t like it. Over one hundred years ago, the Court held in Reynolds v. U.S. that polygamy was “an offence against society.” The Reynolds decision upheld the criminal conviction of a man accused of taking a second wife in the belief that he had a religious duty to practice polygamy, a duty he would violate at risk of damnation. The Court compared polygamy to murders sanctified by religious belief, such as human sacrifice or the burning of women on their husbands’ funeral pyres.

Even in Victorian America, this comparison made little sense.(Most Victorian women, I suspect, would have chosen polygamous marriages over death by burning.) Today the Court’s analogy is as anachronistic as a ban on adultery. After all, what’s the difference between an adulterer and a polygamist? And if it’s not illegal for a married man to support a girlfriend or two and father children out of wedlock with them, how can it be illegal for him to bind himself to them according to the laws of his church?

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#7352 Feb 21, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>I never said Canada's and the USA's constitutions are the same. Never said any such thing.
I said there were 'one time similarities' concerning their 'freedom of religion' and our 'freedom of religion' laws. I never said they were the same. Never said any such thing.

SCOTUS decided that polygamy didn't fall under the first amendment even though it had been and was than and still is now a religious practice for at least the past three thousand years. The Bible dates it back to the time of Adam and Eve while they were still alive. Scotus used evidence of Christianity rejecting polygamy in making it's ruling. Thus SCOTUS did in fact step on a first amendment constitutional religious right.
I took the following from the web as it's an interesting read.
..
So why is polygamy illegal? Why don’t Mormons have the right to enter into multiple marriages sanctified by their church, if not the state? There’s a short answer to this question but not a very good one: polygamy is illegal and unprotected by the Constitution because the Supreme Court doesn’t like it. Over one hundred years ago, the Court held in Reynolds v. U.S. that polygamy was “an offence against society.” The Reynolds decision upheld the criminal conviction of a man accused of taking a second wife in the belief that he had a religious duty to practice polygamy, a duty he would violate at risk of damnation. The Court compared polygamy to murders sanctified by religious belief, such as human sacrifice or the burning of women on their husbands’ funeral pyres.

Even in Victorian America, this comparison made little sense.(Most Victorian women, I suspect, would have chosen polygamous marriages over death by burning.) Today the Court’s analogy is as anachronistic as a ban on adultery. After all, what’s the difference between an adulterer and a polygamist? And if it’s not illegal for a married man to support a girlfriend or two and father children out of wedlock with them, how can it be illegal for him to bind himself to them according to the laws of his church?
Because u men then marry off ur daughters to their uncles. Women are true chattel in those compounds u think are soo divine. Want to be a real god? Be a polygamist Mormon..

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#7353 Feb 21, 2013
Liam R wrote:
<quoted text>
But that can be like debating Harry Potter by reading from Hunger Games.
<quoted text>
Pure supposition, there is no evidence of that.
<quoted text>
Ah, no. That would be ridiculous. His disciples were with him for the entirety of his teachings,whereas Paul never met Jesus and started teaching christianity before he met any of the disciples.
<quoted text>
The "christian" Bible is irrelevant. Paul contradicts what is in the Bible, therefore he was not inspired by the God of the Bible. At best, he had faulty opinions. At worst, he was a false prophet, deliberately leading people away from the God of the Bible.
Seriously, think about it. The Bible repeatedly states, in no uncertain terms, that the Laws of Moses are to be followed for ever. Jesus repeats this. Paul says "Oh, no... its okay to just ignore those, they are old fashioned and out of date. God didn't mean that for ever was supposed to be for ever, for ever just means for a little while until something better comes along."
Yes it would be if the Harry Potter story and the Hunger Games story were over 1600 years old.
In that case there is no evidence of the Bible except for some people, some history and geographical areas being proved as having existed. All the rest is supposition. To dismiss something in the Bible because you disagree with it isn't logical at all. Disagreeing with something in the Bible as having been proved false and not correct is logical.
Umm not. Paul did live when Jesus lived so declares the writings of Paul whether you like them or not. Paul persecuted Jesus's followers. Most people that persecute a religion, most have a good amount of knowledge of what they disbelieve and persecute. They use that information to condemn those believing in that religion to show their heretics of the real true religion which Paul was a member of at one time. So it is highly possible that Paul had met his adversary one or more times. And I don't claim it happened. I claim it possibly happened. Paul contradicts what's in the Bible? The Bible authors contradict themselves and each other as well many times. It wouldn't be wise to just specify Paul as contradictory.
According to my opinion of what I have read, Jesus added to the laws of Moses. As far as dietary laws and such I think he left it up to his followers to continue in those laws or not to.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#7354 Feb 21, 2013
Romans Road wrote:
<quoted text>
REAL Christianity is a personal relationship with Christ Jesus.....being born again into the family of God........being forgiven from all of our sins and made righteous through the shed BLOOD of Jesus.........we are saved children of the living God......
TRUE Christianity is not a "religion" at all.
Uh, yeah it is.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#7355 Feb 21, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Ohh, that just hurt my emotions so badly lol... fricking foul mouthed slur hypocrite. You're favourite hypocritical statement.. "I'm a homosexual so I can call another homosexual any foul slur word that exists for a homosexual but by damm, you better never let me hear you call a homosexual a slur word of I'll call you a stupid pathetic foul mouthed homophobe!" ...lol...can't get any funnier...lol.
It could get funnier if you could spell so people could understand what the hell you're saying.

Plus it was bizarre watching you fantasize and put words in my mouth.

I cut you off a long time ago. You're not worth the bother. Crawl back into your closet.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#7356 Feb 21, 2013
Tony C wrote:
<quoted text>
It could get funnier if you could spell so people could understand what the hell you're saying.
Plus it was bizarre watching you fantasize and put words in my mouth.
I cut you off a long time ago. You're not worth the bother. Crawl back into your closet.
lol...here, get your undies in a wad over this spelling...yah,yah, yah lolol.
You're a self described hypocritical biased prejudiced slur mongerer.

"For the third time, intent and context matter.
I can call my best friend a [email protected]@+
You can't."

Fricking hypocritical idiot.

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 If Prince Was A Homophobe, What Does That Make ... 1 hr Mikey 4
News Judge who said she wouldn't marry gays fights b... 3 hr The Golden Ruler 11
News Almost one year since gay marriage ruling, LGBT... Tue Rose_NoHo 194
News Pastors Rarely Asked to Wed Same-Sex Couples Tue WasteWater 49
News Irish gay marriage referendum campaigner warns ... Tue Fa-Foxy 8
News How Donald Trump is slowly teaching Republicans... Tue Go Blue Forever 39
News Michael Kirby warns against 'dangerous' politic... Aug 22 Larry Craig s WC ... 26
More from around the web