Will Gay Marriage Pit Church Against ...

Will Gay Marriage Pit Church Against Church?

There are 16102 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.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#17023 Jun 17, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
But it's only a mutually sterile, pointlessly duplicate gendered half of real marriage.
Different. Very different.
Real marriage is sacred. And scientific.
Ss couples are simply pretending. Even a child knows that, because they are NEVER mom and dad, are they.
<quoted text>
'YOUR' views? Seriously.
The denial of the relational reality I accurately stated is as silly as your attempt to frame marriage solely in a legal parameter on a religious forum.
I'm not restrained from viewing the breadth of marriage on this discussion forum. Your attempt to do so only exposes your inability to defend your position if all factors are included. And we certainly are not standing before the SCOTUS.
You are a perfect example of the inability of a homosexual to equate to the full dimension of marriage.
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
We are discussing CIVIL and LEGAL Marriage, not religious matrimony.
Again, if Marriage is "sacred" then under the Laws of this Nation Government has no business in it. "Sacred" matrimony is the concern of sectarian religious bodies, and effect those who subscribe to those sects, not others.
Legally, by Grandfathering, sectarian religionist matrimony is recognized as satisfying the Legal requirements of the Civil Marriage contract as long as certain very basic forms are observed. This does not mean that sectarian religionist bodies are entitled to dictate terms to Civil Government regarding access to or exclusion from Civil Marriage. On the contrary, Civil Government determines who may act in the position of Official Witness for the State (Officiant) to the public verbal expression of Informed Consent to Marriage Contract by the parties to the Contract. Further, demonstration of satisfaction of the Legal requirements for a Marriage License must be made by the applying Parties to the CIVIL authorities, not any sectarian religious person and, upon such demonstration may Marry pretty much anywhere, and with any eligible Officiant they so choose. It is the Civil Government that authorizes the CIVIL marriage, whether Officiated by a CIVIL authority or a sectarian religionist shaman of some stripe ... NOT the other way around.
"Scientific"?
Apart from Social Scientists (I are one, crosspatch) studying it, how is "marriage" itself "scientific"?
Make it march.
(You really need to learn the difference between your imagined models that help you make your own sense of things, and reality; especially the reality of those perspectives specific to disciplines which are not yours; e.g. Law and the Social Sciences. Incorrectly bandying terms which have definitions specific to those disciplines does not mean you are truly conversant in the concepts specific to those perspectives. From your mouth they play like buzzwords.)
'You' are discussing a narrow aspect of marriage to manipulate the outcome.

I annoy you because I bring up things you would try to restrict in a court room.'Sorry', this is not a court room.

In this setting, being sensitive to cultural and religious constricts is a sign of civilization.

As to scientific, I have repeatedly pointed out that AT IT'S MOST BASIC ESSENCE, marriage is cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior. Ss couples are a defective failure of evolutionary mating behavior. That is basic evolutionary science, and you know it.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#17024 Jun 17, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:....Ss couples are simply pretending. Even a child knows that, because they are NEVER mom and dad, are they...
Ask them ...



http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#17025 Jun 17, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:... The ridiculous thing, is that to equate ss couples to marriage, you consistently have to exclude the most important elements of marriage ...
And those ARE ...?

Phenomenologically ...

It's not sex, because marriage is not required.
It's not procreation, because marriage is not required.
It's not parenting, because marriage is not required.

Legally ...

It's not sex, because the Law doesn't require it.
It's not procreation, because the Law doesn't require it.
It's not parenting, because the Law doesn't require it.

We are discussing CIVIL marriage, which means we are discussing the LAW.

Marriage is not scientific. It's a human cultural phenomenon with many variants that have served various purposes in various cultures.

Sacred?

Like this?



or this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#17026 Jun 17, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage.
It serves at least two people.
SCOTUS has determined numerous times, it's interest is because it serves society in general.
It serves two or more INDIVIDUALS.

"Society" is an academic construct, a model.

You still need to learn the difference between symbol and referent.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#17027 Jun 17, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I never said sodomy should prevent people from marrying. I said it is abuse.
<quoted text>
It certainly is relevant in pointing out a distinction at the most intimate level of relationship.
Marriage is a natural HEALTHY physical union.
Ss sex is inherently harmful, unhealthy and demeaning abuse. Yet, that is the closest ss couples can get to imitating intimacy in marriage.
Your idea that we should drop the most visible, physical union in comparing the relationships is understandable in light of the above facts...
<quoted text>
I've never asserted that sex is a factor in allowing people to marry.
I clearly and simply exposed the sexual distinction between ss couples and marriage.
That distinction is clearly a relevant factor in not equating ss couples and marriage.
Are any sexual practices required to qualify for marriage?
Are any sexual practices to disqualify a couple for marriage?
Into which orifice(s) is a penis allowed to enter to be qualified or disqualified for marriage?
Does any particular sexual practice nullify an existing marriage?

Please, tell us all about the sexual rules of marriage. I don't recall seeing ANYTHING about sex on any of the documents required to get married. Maybe you've seen forms I haven't. Do please share.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#17028 Jun 17, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Ask them ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =FZsyyL21LpkXX
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
Ask them which parent is missing in the home?

No need, right?

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#17029 Jun 17, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
And those ARE ...?
Phenomenologically ...
It's not sex, because marriage is not required.
It's not procreation, because marriage is not required.
It's not parenting, because marriage is not required.
Legally ...
It's not sex, because the Law doesn't require it.
It's not procreation, because the Law doesn't require it.
It's not parenting, because the Law doesn't require it.
We are discussing CIVIL marriage, which means we are discussing the LAW.
Marriage is not scientific. It's a human cultural phenomenon with many variants that have served various purposes in various cultures.
Sacred?
Like this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =deoknt3uocYXX
or this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
See, this is the difference between marriage and a SS relationship.

I guess in a gay relationship, if the law doesn't require it, it doesn't count.

You can't include culture, because historically SS relationships are virtually absent.

Hell, you can't even consider the scientific aspect, because SS couples are an abnormality!

You make my point!

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#17030 Jun 17, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
It serves two or more INDIVIDUALS.
"Society" is an academic construct, a model.
You still need to learn the difference between symbol and referent.
Here we go again.

Heteros consider married people a couple, not individuals. I guess when you duplicate gender even you understand nothing distinct is created.

I never used the term society, I was speaking of a culture, like the 'gay culture.'

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#17031 Jun 17, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Are any sexual practices required to qualify for marriage?
Are any sexual practices to disqualify a couple for marriage?
Into which orifice(s) is a penis allowed to enter to be qualified or disqualified for marriage?
Does any particular sexual practice nullify an existing marriage?
Please, tell us all about the sexual rules of marriage. I don't recall seeing ANYTHING about sex on any of the documents required to get married. Maybe you've seen forms I haven't. Do please share.
So sex isn't a part of marriage unless its required by law?

Damn, I'm busted big time!!!

“praying for you!”

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#17032 Jun 17, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
There were no commandments. Moses didn't exist yet. Nor did Jesus.
Try again.
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA? did you really say that?
OMG.

So you are calling the HOLY bible a lie?

well you can't reason with people who blasphem the bible with such horrid accusations.

you better read Exodus 20:3-17
it was Moses whom God gave those commandments to.
and it was Moses who read and taught and shared those 10 commandments to the Israelites.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#17033 Jun 17, 2013
Walterwalter wrote:
So you are calling the HOLY bible a lie?
Of course. That's why Satan sends his children to "Christian Forums", to call God a liar. Payday is coming soon.
Thinking

London, UK

#17034 Jun 17, 2013
This is the same bible that said jesus would return within the lifetime of his followers... that also said insects have just four legs and that birds also have four legs.

The bible is very flawed.
Walterwalter wrote:
<quoted text>
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA? did you really say that?
OMG.
So you are calling the HOLY bible a lie?
well you can't reason with people who blasphem the bible with such horrid accusations.
you better read Exodus 20:3-17
it was Moses whom God gave those commandments to.
and it was Moses who read and taught and shared those 10 commandments to the Israelites.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#17035 Jun 17, 2013
Thinking wrote:
This is the same bible that said jesus would return within the lifetime of his followers... that also said insects have just four legs and that birds also have four legs.
The bible is very flawed.
<quoted text>
It is your Biblical literacy that is VERY flawed.

“praying for you!”

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#17036 Jun 17, 2013
dollarsbill wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course. That's why Satan sends his children to "Christian Forums", to call God a liar. Payday is coming soon.
waaaaaaaaa? you contridict yourself.
you think this is a christian thread?
you think someone (such as myself) who holds up, and promotes the Holy bible as God's truth, is a child of satan?
you call the one who promotes biblical truth a liar?

whats wrong with you?
you just answered my question i posed to you if you thought the bible as a lie, and you said,'of course'.
so that means you are a child of satan.

“praying for you!”

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#17037 Jun 17, 2013
Thinking wrote:
This is the same bible that said jesus would return within the lifetime of his followers... that also said insects have just four legs and that birds also have four legs.
The bible is very flawed.
<quoted text>
Jesus NEVER said He would return in the life time of His followers.
man you people who never read the bible and then get on here and make such idiotic statements like you do, creams my corn.

Jesus said that the generation who witnesses ALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL the fulfilled prophecys happening at the same time, would be the generation to see His return.
when Jesus was talking to the disciples the 2nd temple had not yet been distroyed.
many prophecys had to be fulfilled that would happen way after their life time.

Jesus also discussed the transfiguration, where some of those disciples would be chosen to go up on the mountain with Jesus and witness the transfiguration of Jesus (which was to see Him in His heavenly glorified body) for a short time.

READ THE BIBLE in truth.
stop listening to the lies of the world who could care less if you spend eternity in hell or not.

wise up.
OKAY

United States

#17038 Jun 17, 2013
Thinking wrote:
This is the same bible that said jesus would return within the lifetime of his followers... that also said insects have just four legs and that birds also have four legs.
The bible is very flawed.
<quoted text>
Yet HIS Followers are here today.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#17039 Jun 17, 2013
Walterwalter wrote:
<quoted text>
waaaaaaaaa? you contridict yourself.
you think this is a christian thread?
you think someone (such as myself) who holds up, and promotes the Holy bible as God's truth, is a child of satan?
you call the one who promotes biblical truth a liar?
whats wrong with you?
you just answered my question i posed to you if you thought the bible as a lie, and you said,'of course'.
so that means you are a child of satan.
I wasn't referring to you. I was agreeing with you.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#17040 Jun 17, 2013
OKAY wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet HIS Followers are here today.
Amen!

“No Allah: know peace”

Since: Jun 07

A sacred grove in Tujunga, CA

#17041 Jun 17, 2013
Walterwalter wrote:
<quoted text>
do you have a copy of the Holy bible? If you do, then you might want to throw it out. Because clearly from your posts you just called the entire bible and God a liar.
I never called the God of the Bible a liar, just the men who have chosen to try and change or ignore His word...
Walterwalter wrote:
you deny the power of God, the purpose of His word and the prophets He chose to execute His word to every generation
Heres the thing, IF the bible were (as you proclaim it to be) just mens words and not true at all, then explain to me this
how is it the bible has held the same ultimate number one position of all holy lititure since the day it was written?
For much of its history, it was a captive audience.
Walterwalter wrote:
how has it maintained its status thru out EVERY century of mankind and not lost its flavor, power changing abilities, and how come it has never been proven to be in error by anyone?
It has been. Repeatedly. We now KNOW that Noah's flood was just a myth, we know that the Earth has been around for 4.5 BILLION years, that the Earth is a sphere and not a flat disc...
Walterwalter wrote:
had it been false it would not 'stood the test of time' as it has.
had it been false it would not of fulfilled TO THE LETTER every given prophecy up to date as it has.
Oh, there are plenty of prophecies that have not been fulfilled. The Messiah, for example.
Walterwalter wrote:
no man has ever been able to change it, alter it, ban it, lessen its worth or remove it from its all time number one spot.
False. Paul invented a whole new religion that pretends to use parts of the Bible while ignoring other parts.
Walterwalter wrote:
so, your human desire to distrust what Isaiah 55:11 claims, is about as insignificant as an ant trying to topple an elephant off a cliff.
the proof is in the test of time.
Thank you. That is a delightful verse, and the rest of the passage proves my point!

Isaiah 55:10 For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither...

The Bible is not a science text. It fails to accurately explain things like the hydrological cycle, since we now know that the rain that falls to Earth comes from clouds, not because some guy with a long white beard opened up a window in the heavens. And after that rain falls, it eventually DOES return thither, too.

“No Allah: know peace”

Since: Jun 07

A sacred grove in Tujunga, CA

#17042 Jun 17, 2013
Walterwalter wrote:
<quoted text>
Murder
Idolatry
Sexual immorality
refusal to obey the laws of God
the bible says if you are guilty of breaking ONE commandment
you are guilty of breaking them all.......
"for whosoever shall keep the whole law, yet offend in ONE point
he is guilty of all." James 2:10
thats why God sent Jesus, cause NO ONE can keep the entire law perfectly. God knew that.
Cite chapter and verse showing that those commandments had been given before the punishment.

And the Bible points out that humans CAN follow the Law, that is why the children of Israel received it in the first place. If the God of the Bible sent Jesus, it is only because Joseph and Mary had sex and his sperm reached her egg.

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 Mormon church backs Utah LGBT anti-discriminati... 5 min Termiraider 6,491
News Gay wedding cake at center of Colorado Appeals ... 23 min Wondering 614
News End of Boy Scouts' ban on gays prompts elation ... 1 hr Rainbow Kid 32
News Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 1 hr Belle Sexton 34,548
News Religious liberty is rallying cry after gay mar... 3 hr 2all 426
News Clerk to quit, cites 'moral conviction' 11 hr Open Mind 126
News Japanese fans flock to Seoul for 'Yon-sama' wed... 11 hr Ainu 3
More from around the web