Largest US Protestant churches on gay...

Largest US Protestant churches on gay clergy

There are 311 comments on the The Oregonian story from Feb 28, 2010, titled Largest US Protestant churches on gay clergy. In it, The Oregonian reports that:

A look at where the largest Protestant churches in the United States stand on gay clergy: ?UNITED METHODIST CHURCH: 7.9 million U.S. members.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Oregonian.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#297 Dec 22, 2012
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes it is true! What is wrong with your thinking? You're the one that stated with error... "The civil authority for same-sex civil union and the benefits that will come by such unions are gauranteed in our Constitution." NO THEIR NOT. Relationships between citizens of the USA have never have been guaranteed as a right/privileged.! Not even for opposite sex marriage/relationships.
Not until SCOTUS "redefines" what the constitution says concerning a matter at hand and, using modern laws connected to the matter passed by states of recent decades with what the constitution "might have to say/mention directly/indirectly will anything be established/guaranteed as a right/privilege.
And if you had read US law, you would know laws and ordinances were written for marriage from the time of the first 13 colonies. But you would also know marriage was never written about and or defined in any of our legal documents set forth in the 17th century. Not in the Constitution, Not in the Bill of Rights, not in any of them.
Prove me wrong if you think you're so correct! Paste me the statements from the constitution, bill of rights etc written in the 17th century that define and spell out what a marriage is between two American citizens. But you won't because you can't. That information WAS NEVER DEFINED.
So you are totally and absolutely incorrect thinking that "The civil authority for same-sex civil union and the benefits that will come by such unions are gauranteed in our Constitution."
When SCOTUS reviews and defines what marriage is between two citizens of America, then and only then will the constitution say something specifically of marriage.
The Constitution established the Federation. But, by specifically reserving unto the separate states that which is not specifically written into the Constitution, the laws of the States, including statutory and common Law, and marriage and property, are established under the Constitution.

This is why the SCOTUS has the authority to determine civil rights, including affirming the rights of individuals to take civil union, including same-sex civil union.

Rev. Ken

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#298 Dec 22, 2012
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
You're a real riot sometimes lol.
So Adam and Eve by your logic did a shack up marriage eh? That is how we define a common law marriage, shacking up without having did marital vows that the community recognizes as legal and binding.
Well I'll do one better by your logic. Adam and Eve were brother and sister that shacked up and had incestuous sex. That's your logic back at you with out any further contemplation about the matter.
I mean for you to think Adam and Eve did a non-married shack up relationship, you have to ignore a ton of laws God would later establish for actual married couples. That means you believe legal marriages were an invention of men, not God. Because if God invented marriage, it stands to reason he would have married Adam and Eve since there was no other humans in existence.
But since you believe God didn't marry Adam and Eve, that means you believe marriage is a man made idea, not something created by God. That further means God supports shack up/non-married relationships instead of married relationships. An interesting twist you have going there.
Next, I have said I don't care who marries what or whom as long as it is legal by law. So you're wrong of me again.
My view point of the Bible is from what it teaches or doesn't teach. It teaches/records/propmotes opposite sex marriages/unions and it doesn't teach/record/promote same sex and non-married shack up relationships as you falsely teach it endorses/promotes.
You or anyone can have a go at promoting/supporting same sex and non-married shack up relationships from any angle you want and do it 24/7. But the Christian Bible we have today doesn't support either idea/concept. Simple to understand, really. Why are you having such a hard/tough time comprehending that fact? it's a Bible fact. Not a my fact or their fact or some idea from left field. The Bible doesn't support/promote same sex and shack up non-married relationships. How long will it take you to accept that Bible fact? Hmm?
Sorry, bud.

The mythical duo, Adam and Eve, were not brother and sister, born of the same parents. They were originally formed, in the story, first out of the dust of the earth, and then secondly, one from the other. No incestuous relationship; just the same genetic material.

But, if you believe the mythical account, their children married each other and humankind procreated and populated the earth. That is, their children were incestuous.

Except for a couple of little oddball statements inserted in the story:

After Cain killed his brother, Abel, Cain moved to the land of Nod, east of Eden and married. Where did his wife come from? The story in the biblical account gives no answer. All we know is that the Hebrew "Nod" is the root word for nomad. Even so, the sons of Cain are credited with building the first "permanent" city.

And in another place, the account reads, "The Nephilim were on the earth in those days - and also afterward - when the sons of God went in to the daughters of humans, who bore children to them...."

Apparently, according to this account, there were other people who were not descendants of Adam and Eve.

Still, the account tells of Adam and Eve waking up and finding each other and mating. No marriage ceremony is mentioned. It just happens. They "pair-bond." This bonding is then said to be the reason that a man takes a wife.

And, yes, they simply "shacked up" in the very first common-law marriage.

Rev. Ken

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#299 Dec 22, 2012
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
The Constitution established the Federation. But, by specifically reserving unto the separate states that which is not specifically written into the Constitution, the laws of the States, including statutory and common Law, and marriage and property, are established under the Constitution.
This is why the SCOTUS has the authority to determine civil rights, including affirming the rights of individuals to take civil union, including same-sex civil union.
Rev. Ken
Not in any disagreement there.
I was in earlier disagreement because you stated the constitution afforded rights to same sex relationships and that isn't true.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#300 Dec 22, 2012
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, bud.
The mythical duo, Adam and Eve, were not brother and sister, born of the same parents.
People assume traditional Bible teachings are true and don't question them.
In the Bible the story of Adam and Eve and God all have relationships to each other.
No matter how we came to be, the Bible teaches God the Father is our Father, not our brother. He created all that is.
He created Adam and Eve. Who were Adam and Eve by Biblical definition, just as it describes you and I? We are all brothers and sisters because we all have the same God the Father that gave us life. Those are Bible facts be they myth or truths. Those facts are further proved true because the Bible calls us sons and daughters of God.
Therefore though many don't think it out as you haven't, Adam and Eve are literal brother and sister as the Bible states you and I are brothers. They were brother and sister because they each had the same Father as do you and I.
Yes the flesh makes differences in that concept. But spiritually we're all brothers and sisters and that equates to spiritual incest. Thus Adam and Eve being the first fleshly humans created for this earth, they were related 100% by the flesh and spirit. Therefore they were brother and sister by flesh and spirit and thus had an incestuous relationship that was approved of by God the Father himself. And that's in the Bible. Disprove it if you can :)

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#301 Dec 23, 2012
RevKen wrote:
But, if you believe the mythical account, their children married each other and humankind procreated and populated the earth. That is, their children were incestuous.
Except for a couple of little oddball statements inserted in the story:
After Cain killed his brother, Abel, Cain moved to the land of Nod, east of Eden and married. Where did his wife come from? The story in the biblical account gives no answer. All we know is that the Hebrew "Nod" is the root word for nomad. Even so, the sons of Cain are credited with building the first "permanent" city.
And in another place, the account reads, "The Nephilim were on the earth in those days - and also afterward - when the sons of God went in to the daughters of humans, who bore children to them...."
Apparently, according to this account, there were other people who were not descendants of Adam and Eve.
Still, the account tells of Adam and Eve waking up and finding each other and mating. No marriage ceremony is mentioned. It just happens. They "pair-bond." This bonding is then said to be the reason that a man takes a wife.
And, yes, they simply "shacked up" in the very first common-law marriage.
Rev. Ken
With exception to Revelations and a few other places in the Bible, it's not hard to understand it once you get past the ancient English used for it's translations.
In Genesis certain things were wrote about and others obviously excluded. So to understand Genesis you need to assume the obvious of "missing scripture".
With the exception of Adam and Eve and their first sons and daughters that would marry each other, us defining that incestuous relationships, their children that would marry each other would be first cousins. Their children marrying each other would be second cousins etc. So the act of incest was limited by our definition of that word to Adam and Eve and the relationships of their first born sons and daughters.
It is evident that the earth was quite populated by the time Cain slew Able. Note they knew about sacrifices ton the Lord yet we have no mention of it being taught. Polygamous marriages are mentioned existing but we have no mention of their beginning.
So it is safe to assume, that Adam and Eve begot many, many children. It is safe to assume that it was the Spirit of God that enlightened Adam and Eve as to what to do concerning the worship of God, like giving sacrifices.
That means Adam and Eve taught their knowledge to their sons and daughters who taught it to their children etc. It is safe to assume to believe that since Cain knew how to build a city, he was taught that information and it came from Adam and Eve.
Cain would have obeyed God's laws about leaving home to find a wife as more than likely so did Able and all the sons of Adam. So Cain was married prior to murdering his brother. After that deed and his punishments he left with his wife to a different land to the east of Eden to live.
That is how I fill in the gaps be it wrong or right. I do have limited information to work with :)

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#302 Dec 23, 2012
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
With exception to Revelations and a few other places in the Bible, it's not hard to understand it once you get past the ancient English used for it's translations.
In Genesis certain things were wrote about and others obviously excluded. So to understand Genesis you need to assume the obvious of "missing scripture".
With the exception of Adam and Eve and their first sons and daughters that would marry each other, us defining that incestuous relationships, their children that would marry each other would be first cousins. Their children marrying each other would be second cousins etc. So the act of incest was limited by our definition of that word to Adam and Eve and the relationships of their first born sons and daughters.
It is evident that the earth was quite populated by the time Cain slew Able. Note they knew about sacrifices ton the Lord yet we have no mention of it being taught. Polygamous marriages are mentioned existing but we have no mention of their beginning.
So it is safe to assume, that Adam and Eve begot many, many children. It is safe to assume that it was the Spirit of God that enlightened Adam and Eve as to what to do concerning the worship of God, like giving sacrifices.
That means Adam and Eve taught their knowledge to their sons and daughters who taught it to their children etc. It is safe to assume to believe that since Cain knew how to build a city, he was taught that information and it came from Adam and Eve.
Cain would have obeyed God's laws about leaving home to find a wife as more than likely so did Able and all the sons of Adam. So Cain was married prior to murdering his brother. After that deed and his punishments he left with his wife to a different land to the east of Eden to live.
That is how I fill in the gaps be it wrong or right. I do have limited information to work with :)
Well, then,...
It is also safe to assume that God approves of loving, trusting, committed, same-sex relationships as occurring among the homosexuals that have existed among human beings ever since humans spread out and populated the earth.

Furthermore, God gives His priests authorization to Bless and Sanctify these unions, in the Name of His Son, Christ Jesus.

Amen

:)

Merry Christmas to All of the homophobic Hypocrites and Bigots!

Rev. Ken

“The Kingdom of God Begins NOW!”

Since: May 07

The Mountain Empire

#303 Dec 23, 2012
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
I could probably find things you said that aren't true of Mormonism. But the fact remains most anything you said of Mormonism was twisted and extremely sarcastic and derogatory and even vile at times to show how much you loath/hate/disrespect Mormonism/Mormons in general, thus defining yourself repeatedly by those remarks as a severely self defined religious bigot.
There is a difference between arguing against a religion and it's practices that you disagree with and, revealing you have nothing but disrespect/contempt/hate/animo sity for a religion and it's practices while elevating the greatness of your own religion above the one or more that you're condemning with out right disrespect.
So I said nothing false, imagine that.....

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#304 Dec 23, 2012
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, then,...
It is also safe to assume that God approves of loving, trusting, committed, same-sex relationships as occurring among the homosexuals that have existed among human beings ever since humans spread out and populated the earth.
Furthermore, God gives His priests authorization to Bless and Sanctify these unions, in the Name of His Son, Christ Jesus.
Amen
:)
Merry Christmas to All of the homophobic Hypocrites and Bigots!
Rev. Ken
Let's hit a few things about you first. You called the story of Adam and Eve a myth. That means you have declared not having a single clue to knowing/understanding/believin g by faith of what is true or a made up lie concerning the Bible and all it contains.
You believe in God but by your logic for how you view the story of Adam and Eve a myth, the god you believe in by your doubting faith is also a myth. You have no proof or evidence of it's existence except for your own personal opinion as you state the same reasoning to think Adam and Eve a myth. And we all have opinions don't we :)
Next, you have no room, rhyme or reason to challenge a book you have no belief in. You question it's validity that you don't believe in. You use it's scriptures when it fits your purpose and when they don't work for your opinion, you speak against it and or challenge what it says.
I believe in the Bible. I don't know what's true and what isn't so I won't judge one story a myth and another as not a myth as you do. I believe in it's messages. I believe for as much as a story is a myth, it could actually be true. Else why would a God of truth inspire men to write out right lies? That's deception at it's finest and totally opposite of what God is suppose to be, a God of truth, not a God of deceptions, white lies and lies. So concerning the Christian Bible, you either believe and give room for doubt if you need doubt, not disbelief or you don't believe at all. Simple formula.
By the way, it's a new age Christian belief that God approves of and sanctifies same sex relationships. The Israelites for all their recorded history that we have, never believed that. Neither do we have any evidence in Christian writings in the Bible or not included in the Bible, that Christians ever had such a belief either. Therefore it's safe to assume by existing evidence of the last 4000 years that the present theory that God approves of same sex relationships, it's a modern man made belief, it has no scriptural basis at all. It's something people of this day and age wish to believe could be true.
If people want to believe God blesses same sex relationships believe it. But it's unwise to use the Bible for a base in that belief.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#305 Dec 24, 2012
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's hit a few things about you first. You called the story of Adam and Eve a myth. That means you have declared not having a single clue to knowing/understanding/believin g by faith of what is true or a made up lie concerning the Bible and all it contains.
You believe in God but by your logic for how you view the story of Adam and Eve a myth, the god you believe in by your doubting faith is also a myth. You have no proof or evidence of it's existence except for your own personal opinion as you state the same reasoning to think Adam and Eve a myth. And we all have opinions don't we :)
Next, you have no room, rhyme or reason to challenge a book you have no belief in. You question it's validity that you don't believe in. You use it's scriptures when it fits your purpose and when they don't work for your opinion, you speak against it and or challenge what it says.
I believe in the Bible. I don't know what's true and what isn't so I won't judge one story a myth and another as not a myth as you do. I believe in it's messages. I believe for as much as a story is a myth, it could actually be true. Else why would a God of truth inspire men to write out right lies? That's deception at it's finest and totally opposite of what God is suppose to be, a God of truth, not a God of deceptions, white lies and lies. So concerning the Christian Bible, you either believe and give room for doubt if you need doubt, not disbelief or you don't believe at all. Simple formula.
By the way, it's a new age Christian belief that God approves of and sanctifies same sex relationships. The Israelites for all their recorded history that we have, never believed that. Neither do we have any evidence in Christian writings in the Bible or not included in the Bible, that Christians ever had such a belief either. Therefore it's safe to assume by existing evidence of the last 4000 years that the present theory that God approves of same sex relationships, it's a modern man made belief, it has no scriptural basis at all. It's something people of this day and age wish to believe could be true.
If people want to believe God blesses same sex relationships believe it. But it's unwise to use the Bible for a base in that belief.
"Therefore it's safe to assume ..."

Merry Christmas, brother,

Rev. Ken

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#306 Dec 24, 2012
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
"Therefore it's safe to assume ..."
Merry Christmas, brother,
Rev. Ken
"...safe to assume..." See, we can agree together :)
Merry Christmas to you and your's :))

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#307 Dec 29, 2012
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Not in any disagreement there.
I was in earlier disagreement because you stated the constitution afforded rights to same sex relationships and that isn't true.
No Surprise,

It is a fact that the Constitution does afford rights to same sex relationships - not only by its umbrellage that links each of the separate States to each other under an agreed Federation; but also by its implication of protection of individual, personal rights and freedoms. The principle is established.

I am not wishing to create argument here.

I merely point out the motivations that were evident among the Founders. If you have not read things like The Federalist Papers and other writings by those who were part of the process of those times, you would not know these things. So, I recommend reading about them. You will find that there were many of the Signers of both the Declaration and the Constitution(s) who believed that slavery was abhorrent and inexcusable. They also recognized that eventually each Human Being, male and female, would be entitled to his or her own vote.

For instance, many have never been taught that the real reason the black man received only 3/5ths of a vote in the Constitution was not because he was regarded by the Founders to be less than Human by 2/5ths.

The real reason was that those who would have released them and outlawed slavery knew that the "owners" would have the slave-holder capacity to control their own slave votes and by so doing would wield such influence that the abolition of slavery would never gain enough political power to cause the necessary changes. So, the 2/5ths deficit was intentionally built in for the purpose of limiting the slave-holders' power to perpetuate the practice, thereby laying the groundwork for eventually rectifying the philosophical problem that could not be changed at the moment.

Don't forget, there were free black men and women who were owners of business and property at that time, in the Colonies.

Look how long it took to bring women's suffrage onto equal footing with men. How much longer has it taken for ethnic minorities, and especially southern blacks, to achieve the same capacity to vote? For decades, whites literally refused to put the institutional forms into place to educate these people, while also controlling access to the polling booth.

Even here in Lincoln's Illinois, segregation laws remained on the books well into the 1950's. Yet today, here in Illinois, I can take you to towns and villages where restaurant service to blacks is still unequal. It is a mighty uncomfortable situation when a black family or individual sits down at a restaurant and is ignored. But, I tell you, it still happens. A restaurateur in Illinois retains the legal right to refuse service to any one he chooses.

Sometimes, the sword of Liberty cuts two ways. It will be found to be a civil right that same-sex couples are entitled to marry, with full civil right to a legal union. Clergy cannot be forced to conduct the ceremony. But, neither can clergy be prevented from conducting the ceremony.

It wasn't very long after it was written and signed that the Nation found that the Constitution wrote into Law a heck of a lot more than just the words that were presented in its original form.

Rev. Ken

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#308 Dec 30, 2012
Not equal yet...but much closer than last year!

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#309 Dec 30, 2012
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
No Surprise,
It is a fact that the Constitution does afford rights to same sex relationships - not only by its umbrellage that links each of the separate States to each other under an agreed Federation; but also by its implication of protection of individual, personal rights and freedoms. The principle is established.
If that were as true as you wish it was, there would be no fighting for same sex marriage rights. You understand that correct? If that was true, the first legal case for same sex marriage would have went through that state's courts and would have been recognized as a constitutional right. Just like owning a gun is a constitutional right etc.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#310 Dec 30, 2012
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
If that were as true as you wish it was, there would be no fighting for same sex marriage rights. You understand that correct? If that was true, the first legal case for same sex marriage would have went through that state's courts and would have been recognized as a constitutional right. Just like owning a gun is a constitutional right etc.
The Constitution established and maintains the principle.

As a result, the slave became a free man, women received the right to vote and the Supreme Court will firmly decide in favor of the right to same-sex civil union and gay marriage.

It will become the Law of the Land, whether or not I might wish it to be true.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#311 Dec 31, 2012
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
The Constitution established and maintains the principle.
As a result, the slave became a free man, women received the right to vote and the Supreme Court will firmly decide in favor of the right to same-sex civil union and gay marriage.
It will become the Law of the Land, whether or not I might wish it to be true.
No no, you're trying to state the constitution guarantees same sex marriage directly/indirectly. It has never did either because it never addressed that matter.
The freed slave, rights for women, doing away with discrimination based on colour, allowing interracial marriages, etc, those are things people established laws for or against that the constitution neither endorsed nor forbid.
Why do you think a president wrote and passed into law something called the emancipation proclamation? Because the constitution didn't forbid the owning of slaves. Slavery had to be outlawed by a brand new law.
Well the same for women rights, discrimination, interracial marriage, homosexuality, same sex marriage, etc. The constitution didn't forbid laws being against those things and prohibiting them. New laws had to be passed in order for those laws to be nullified as non-applicable. The constitution neither supported nor forbid any of those things.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#312 Dec 31, 2012
Happy New Year!

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#313 Jan 1, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
No no, you're trying to state the constitution guarantees same sex marriage directly/indirectly. It has never did either because it never addressed that matter.
The freed slave, rights for women, doing away with discrimination based on colour, allowing interracial marriages, etc, those are things people established laws for or against that the constitution neither endorsed nor forbid.
Why do you think a president wrote and passed into law something called the emancipation proclamation? Because the constitution didn't forbid the owning of slaves. Slavery had to be outlawed by a brand new law.
Well the same for women rights, discrimination, interracial marriage, homosexuality, same sex marriage, etc. The constitution didn't forbid laws being against those things and prohibiting them. New laws had to be passed in order for those laws to be nullified as non-applicable. The constitution neither supported nor forbid any of those things.
No.

Those "things" were later endorsed and passed and when necessary, amendments were added, simply because the principles established, as you said either directly or indirectly, are irrefutable.

Rev. Ken

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#314 Jan 2, 2013
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
No.
Those "things" were later endorsed and passed and when necessary, amendments were added, simply because the principles established, as you said either directly or indirectly, are irrefutable.
Rev. Ken
Thank you for admitting what wasn't in the constitution and what was ADDED LATER as law for things the constitution didn't cover :)

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#316 Jan 3, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you for admitting what wasn't in the constitution and what was ADDED LATER as law for things the constitution didn't cover :)
On the contrary, that was the whole point of creating the framework in the first place - so that it COULD be amended - without losing the basis for the principles that were first defined. If that is any sort of admission, I gladly make it.

And, Well,... if you had already taken time to read the Federalist Papers, as well as getting an understanding of the motivations of Jefferson and Franklin and a few others in their group, you would have likely gained a different view of the actual civil rights that we should expect to defend for each other.

When they completed the task of executing the Constitution, Franklin made a prophetic comment. He said something to the effect, " Gentlemen, you have managed to create a Constitutional Republic. Now the task will be to see if you can keep it."

We must not fear to take civil rights and the defense of the personal liberty of the individual citizen to the extensions that are both practical and logical. This includes allowing consenting adults the right to the benefits of a civil union.

Just because the Constitution does not have the words you would demand as proof of intent does not mean that the principles of its tenets are not present.

Rev. Ken

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#317 Jan 3, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you for admitting what wasn't in the constitution and what was ADDED LATER as law for things the constitution didn't cover :)
Do you mean like IN GOD WE TRUST added to the bills in 1957?

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 2 couples tie the knot in Australia's 1st same-... 41 min Randy 1
News Gay couple, devout baker take cake fight to hig... 50 min Fix That Bridge 112
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 1 hr RiccardoFire 15,046
News Police bust drug rings, arrest 22 in 3 states (Sep '07) 9 hr Wow just wow 3
News Will Donald Trump be invited to the royal wedding? 13 hr Reddiaperdoperbaby1 95
News Lesbian granted rights of 'husband' in same-sex... (May '17) 14 hr thomas cordell co... 48
News All bets are off at the Supreme Court 18 hr Brick House 48
More from around the web