Will Gay Marriage Pit Church Against Church?

Apr 27, 2009 | Posted by: SongBookz | Full story: news.yahoo.com

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.

Comments (Page 551)

Showing posts 11,001 - 11,020 of16,105
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“Seriously guys...”

Since: May 12

The 'Shwa

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12554
Apr 7, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, unlike sexual orientation, religion is a chosen lifestyle which needs to be indoctrinated ... literally.
I think American Dad said it best. "People don't choose to be gay, but they DO choose to be Democrats!"

Or Republicans, or fundamentalist whackjobs.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12555
Apr 7, 2013
 
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, unlike sexual orientation, religion is a chosen lifestyle which needs to be indoctrinated ... literally.
Religion is present in every single culture. It is accepted and embraced by the vast majority of those cultures.

Calling ss couples 'married'? Never.

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12556
Apr 7, 2013
 
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Sexually deranged liberals? That's both a stereotype and fallacy. FYI, one of the most prestigious and Conservative Lawyers in our country is before the Supreme Court making the case for equality.
Not special rights, fundamental rights of citizens as proscribed in the 14th amendment to the Constitution.
BTW, your "sexually deranged liberal" statement is a bigoted statement. If the shoe fits, wear it.
Ss couples do not equate to marriage.

At it's most basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.

ss couples can't be 'married'. It is impossible.

It is visibly obvious they are only ever a senselessly duplicated half of marriage. A desecration of sacred design. A barren imposter relationship that is always a devastating deprivation of family imposed on a child for the sake of an illusion. A violent imitation of sexual intimacy.

There is nothing, at any level that equates a ss couple to marriage.

Smile.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12557
Apr 7, 2013
 
Moses wrote:
<quoted text>Still no legally valid justification for changing and altering the meaning of marriage, to include same sex couples. Ain't that something?
By the way, when did this prohibition begin? The only case that can be made is in California, where the justices allowed it for a mimute and then it was prohibited.
Now, please explain your legally valid justification to change marriage to include same sex, but not adult incest, child incest, bestiality, polygamy and pedophilia.
If you justification is consent, then that is just an opinion. If your justification is the moral concept of family and parenting, then that is a moral opinion like same sex couples.
You got nothing. Sorry!
It doesn't matter when it began. The subjugation of blacks started before the Constitution was even drafted. So what? Their rights were eventually realized, as was the right to marry outside of one's race.

The slippery slope argument was also used in the dissent to the Loving v. Virginia case. Would you include inter-racial marriage as part of the slippery slope as was done in the dissent?

Consent is not an opinion. Morality is irrelevant.

When you're ready to present a legally valid justification for prohibiting same-sex marriage, you let us know, mmkay?

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12558
Apr 7, 2013
 
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Ss couples do not equate to marriage.
At it's most basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
ss couples can't be 'married'. It is impossible.
It is visibly obvious they are only ever a senselessly duplicated half of marriage. A desecration of sacred design. A barren imposter relationship that is always a devastating deprivation of family imposed on a child for the sake of an illusion. A violent imitation of sexual intimacy.
There is nothing, at any level that equates a ss couple to marriage.
Smile.
I agree. Just like infertile people marrying. It's preposterous, and should not be allowed. I mean, am I right?

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12559
Apr 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Religion is present in every single culture. It is accepted and embraced by the vast majority of those cultures.
Calling ss couples 'married'? Never.
Smile.
And, as soon as religious beliefs are a legally valid justification for prohibiting same-sex marriage in America, you'll have a point.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12560
Apr 7, 2013
 
The Worlds Biggest Lie wrote:
<quoted text>
For this govt to force this upon our youth should be a crime. I don't care what anyone thinks, the gd jews that puppet our govt are behind this with the sick minded liberals that call themselves 'Christains/Catholics.
There could be proven no God at all and all religions could vanish in an instant but as human beings we are still left with the choices of what is right and what is wrong and sodomy between two men is simply disturbing, and that is being modest. With the preposterous concept of ss parenting I call it child traficking.
These no good sob's have been destroying our society extensively since the 60's. Don't get me wrong, it's certainly not only gays, it's the people in high places profiting from this crap that should be put away. They have been corrupting our society in many many was, but this is outragious.
There will come a day
And that day is near.
http://i.qkme.me/74wl.jpg

“Seriously guys...”

Since: May 12

The 'Shwa

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12561
Apr 7, 2013
 
Noah wrote:
<quoted text>It is true, which is why you did not fact-check it. In fact, here are the facts.
Most children are abused by men, allegedly.
An alleged fact. Now ain't that something.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12562
Apr 7, 2013
 
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree. Just like infertile people marrying. It's preposterous, and should not be allowed. I mean, am I right?
Childless marriage has never been a problem before, why should it now?

However, equating a duplicated HALF of marriage perpetually desolate and barren is simply idiotic denial of the most basic essence of marriage; a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12563
Apr 7, 2013
 
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Religion is present in every single culture. It is accepted and embraced by the vast majority of those cultures.
Calling ss couples 'married'? Never.
Smile.
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
And, as soon as religious beliefs are a legally valid justification for prohibiting same-sex marriage in America, you'll have a point.
I wasn't using religion to justify the distinction between marriage and ss couples.

I simply noted that like marriage, in 8000 years of human history, religion has been present in every single culture from start to finish.

Calling ss couples married has NEVER in a SINGLE culture been accepted from start to finish.

An astounding distinction.

smile.

“Seriously guys...”

Since: May 12

The 'Shwa

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12564
Apr 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Moses wrote:
<quoted text>Still no legally valid justification for changing and altering the meaning of marriage, to include same sex couples. Ain't that something?
You mean there's a legally valid justification for NOT changing and altering the meaning of marriage to include same sex couples?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12565
Apr 7, 2013
 
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Childless marriage has never been a problem before, why should it now?
However, equating a duplicated HALF of marriage perpetually desolate and barren is simply idiotic denial of the most basic essence of marriage; a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
Smile.
To paraphrase: "Human institutions are for humans, not humans for institutions"

There are solely what we make them.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12566
Apr 7, 2013
 
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Religion is present in every single culture. It is accepted and embraced by the vast majority of those cultures.
Calling ss couples 'married'? Never.
Smile.
<quoted text>
I wasn't using religion to justify the distinction between marriage and ss couples.
I simply noted that like marriage, in 8000 years of human history, religion has been present in every single culture from start to finish.
Calling ss couples married has NEVER in a SINGLE culture been accepted from start to finish.
An astounding distinction.
smile.
Fallacy: Non Sequitur

Neither was the Saturn V rocket.
Garlic man

Fairfield, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12567
Apr 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree. Just like infertile people marrying. It's preposterous, and should not be allowed. I mean, am I right?
You think you have it all figured out but you don't.
When married couples who are sterile (due to physiological anomalies or age), engage in sex, their conjugal act is still ordered towards procreation. Homosexual sex, on the other hand, is sterile by virtue of the anatomical, biological and physiological incompatibilities of those who engage in it.
It's that simple.
Garlic man

Fairfield, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12568
Apr 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
A lack of verifiable evidence is a factoid that does not lead to proof.
I never said nor implied such thing. Those are your words. Own them.
However, just by looking at the world around us, we can see that the world is not unintelligible as it would be expected if the world was just the result of some cosmic accident. It is also possible to personally know God, but this never occurs in the way you probably think God should manifest himself, if he existed.
Garlic man

Fairfield, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12569
Apr 7, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
No, but you sure are.
Either you are physically a kid or a grown person with the mental age of a toddler. You are not worth my time.
Garlic man

Fairfield, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12570
Apr 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

The Worlds Biggest Lie wrote:
<quoted text>
What diaper head snyper doesn't understand is by his pathetic rationalizing for no God at all in order to make his homosexual argument whole, is that there is no such thing of anything in life as we know it as being "wrong" at all.
ANYTHING goes, by his argument.
Whatta fool.
Liberalism is indeed a mental illness. eVeRyWhErE
Agree.

Since: Mar 12

Milwaukee

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12571
Apr 7, 2013
 
Garlic man wrote:
<quoted text>You think you have it all figured out but you don't.
When married couples who are sterile (due to physiological anomalies or age), engage in sex, their conjugal act is still ordered towards procreation. Homosexual sex, on the other hand, is sterile by virtue of the anatomical, biological and physiological incompatibilities of those who engage in it.
It's that simple.
So what about fertile couples that use condoms and or birth control pulls. Should they be condemned because they clearly are not trying to procreate they are trying to prevent it?

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12572
Apr 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Your God doesn't exist. Who cares?
You do, obviously.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12573
Apr 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Biblicism is a heretical tradition that is itself a self-refuting tautology.
You are "perishing" and "blinded".

2 Corinthians 4:3-4 (NKJV)
3 But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, 4 whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 11,001 - 11,020 of16,105
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••