Will Gay Marriage Pit Church Against ...

Will Gay Marriage Pit Church Against Church?

There are 16100 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.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#3861 Feb 6, 2013
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
You're the one that posted that you got excommunicated from the Mormon church after only 3 months. Are you lying now, or were you lying then?
Neither. You're the one that didn't listen to what I told you. So you perpetuate your own lie of something you have no knowledge of because you didn't listen to 'everything' I told you.
I said I had been a member of the church for about three(3) months when I quit attending. I was excommunicated about 4 to 5 years later.
Jeff

San Jose, CA

#3862 Feb 6, 2013
Jazybird58 wrote:
<quoted text>Ok Brian-G, hows does YOUR marriage benefit mine or my marriage
When marriages are solid society benefits. Children have a better chance to perform well and contribute to society. When marriages are bad and end in divorce for example then all kinds of bad things can happen. Children suffer and many can be neglected which can lead to more crimes. Many criminals and gang members come from broken homes. We all pay the bill to house criminals.

“Shoot for the stars”

Since: Dec 10

Planet Earth

#3863 Feb 6, 2013
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not basing my arguments against it on religious reasons.
Yes you are and you have. Your posts a few pages back on this thread proves it too. You can't even remember your own lies anymore. Oh, that's right, you're lyin' for Jesus..........LOL, which is so typical from you.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#3865 Feb 6, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
It actually happens today in our time. In remote villages in China, Russia, Africa, South and Central America NG and other groups have filmed this taking place. To change a popular phrase, "What's born in the village, stays in the village." Watch Fiddler On The Roof if you wish to see a theatrical example. The indigenous people right here in our country did this thing in their tribes all the time. The east coast Indian tribes, the plains Indians, the west coast Indians and the Pueblo Indians all did it. A young couple married and the village helped build their home and gave gifts to help them begin their lives.
So, you weren't discussing here in the United States......and if so.....you were discussing affairs of Native Americans BEFORE White folks arrived......fair enough!!!

Oh and by the way......what those other Countries do have NO BEARING on how things happen in this Country!!!

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#3866 Feb 6, 2013
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Opposite sex people should be allowed to marry. Even people in their old age who cannot procreate still affirm the value of traditional marriage which benefits all.
But this is where your argument loses it's functionality.....if an old couple can not naturally procreate, why should they be allowed to marry and a Same-Sex couple not?

By the way.....this is the argument used by the proponents of Prop 8 and it has already lost twice, both at the district level and the appeals level!!!
Jeff

San Jose, CA

#3867 Feb 6, 2013
Earth Child 1 wrote:
<quoted text> Yes you are and you have. Your posts a few pages back on this thread proves it too. You can't even remember your own lies anymore. Oh, that's right, you're lyin' for Jesus..........LOL, which is so typical from you.
Others have been doing that. I only address it when someone tries to make the case for homosexuality from the Bible.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#3868 Feb 6, 2013
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
When marriages are solid society benefits. Children have a better chance to perform well and contribute to society. When marriages are bad and end in divorce for example then all kinds of bad things can happen. Children suffer and many can be neglected which can lead to more crimes. Many criminals and gang members come from broken homes. We all pay the bill to house criminals.
So, the marriages of Gay and Lesbian couples are just as solid as the marriages of opposite-sex couples......which in turn benefit society:-)

Nothing like a good old fashion stereotyping of gang members!!!

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#3869 Feb 6, 2013
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, you refuse to see cause and effect in attempt to protect that sick faith. This happened during the Mormon Reformation. A time they were teaching blood atonement and revenge for the death of Joseph Smith. It was also soon after the death of Parley P. Pratt who was killed in Arkansas. Many on that wagon train were from Arkansas, and rumors were flying around that they were involved in his death. The church also gave strict orders that the members wee not to sell the party any desperately needed supplies. One member was almost beaten to death for selling them a sack of potatoes.
What happened, happened as a result of the teachings of the church leaders. That makes the church responsible.
You better read more information about this story than you have read at present.
What happened had absolutely nothing to do with church teachings. Even non-Mormon scholars have never stated an ignorant stupid statement as that for why the massacre took place. You said that because of your deep seated angry hate for that church. Read the historical information.
On September 6th the high council met to discuss a Indian massacre of the wagon train. Some said yes and some said no. Haight one of the presidents sent a rider on the 7th to Salt Lake to ask Young what he thought they should do. It was a round trip six day ride.
Now is when you want to ask, if Young commanded the massacre to happen already before this meeting, why did a council meet to discuss if one should take place and why was there disagreements and why was a rider sent the next day to ask for Young's permission to commit that massacre or not to do it if indeed, like Smurf believes, that Young had already given orders for it to happen? If Young had commanded the massacre to happen, there would have been a council to inform the elders what they were being commanded by their prophet to do. Because this was a Mormon militia that was going to preform the massacre, any one saying no to involvement could have been shot for treason. There would have been no dissenting votes. There would have been no rider dispatched to SL. Young wouldn't have wrote a note to not harm the wagon train.
On the same day the rider was dispatched, Haight leading the militia attacked the wagon train. They committed their horrendous actions from the 7th to the 11th. The rider with a letter from Young telling Haight and others not to harm the wagon train arrived on the 13th.
What these men did they did of their own accord. They didn't do it from church teachings. It's also recorded they weren't going to massacre as many as they did. They were mainly going after the men. But someone in the group thought people in the wagon train saw they were whites and might have recognized them. At this point, the men decided to massacre all except little children so there weren't any witnesses.
As scholars on both sides have widely agreed, these men at first were carrying out a 'revenge killing'. Not a blood atonement killing. Not a church doctrine killing. Read the historical information.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#3870 Feb 6, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
These same folks who are biotching about their supposed "moral" values being attacked would frucking scream bloody murder if someone denied them some religious cake or something else because it could go against that person's "MORAL" values......but we already know that idiots like Jeff don't truly care about the beliefs of others......just their own beliefs!!!
It's a war on Christmas when you say "Happy Holidays." But it's OK to refuse service to gay people. LOL.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#3871 Feb 6, 2013
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Blacks and whites should be allowed to marry if they are opposite sexes.
Objection: non-responsive.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#3872 Feb 6, 2013
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
When marriages are solid society benefits. Children have a better chance to perform well and contribute to society. When marriages are bad and end in divorce for example then all kinds of bad things can happen. Children suffer and many can be neglected which can lead to more crimes. Many criminals and gang members come from broken homes. We all pay the bill to house criminals.
When marriages are solid without children, society still benefits.

When marriages are solid with adopted children, society still benefits.

When marriages are solid with children born via surrogate, society still benefits.

You either ban all marriages without potential of procreation, or you can't ban any marriages without potential of procreation.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#3873 Feb 6, 2013
Grandpasmurf952 wrote:
Most Gay people are angry at the Mormons because of the example they set with proposition 8. And they have every right to be angry!
I wasn't even familiar with the Mormons until prop h(8). Now that I am I find the Later Day Saints teachings even more and more hateful than just excluding gays the more I research the nature of the church.
I am not singling out the Mormons as a hate group, and I don't think anyone else here is either. But the teachings encourage people to hate just like a lot of other religions do and need to be exposed for what they are.
Let me help you to understand where you twist things and aren't aware of it.
You stated... "I find the Later Day Saints teachings even more and more hateful..." That means/insinuates from your opinion the Mormons teach hate.
Than you state in contradiction... "I am not singling out the Mormons as a hate group..."
Understand your own contradiction? You have singled out and stated the Mormons as having hate doctrine/speech/teachings/etc for months concerning homosexuality. Than you say you're not singling them out as a hate group.
Next I have some questions for you. You claim Mormons (concerning homosexuals) teach hate and have hateful doctrines. But they also teach hate and have hateful doctrines against people engaged in adultery, bestiality, premarital sex, people using drugs/alcohol/tobacco/coffee to name a few. And all these hate doctrines/teachings and others like them have been in this church since it's foundation. People join this church because their 'usually' in agreement with those hate doctrines/teachings. And you find offense that Mormons would come out in force against same sex marriage? Am I missing something? This is a religion that is against all forms of sexual interactions out side the marital relationship between a man and a woman and you and others think it strange/wrong/unusual/incorrec t/evil that they would vote the way that most of America's non-Mormons would also vote? Fricking give me a dummy pill to understand this as it stymies you..lol.

“Mystical Atheism for everyone!”

Since: Nov 08

El Cerrito California

#3874 Feb 6, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
You better read more information about this story than you have read at present.
What happened had absolutely nothing to do with church teachings. Even non-Mormon scholars have never stated an ignorant stupid statement as that for why the massacre took place. You said that because of your deep seated angry hate for that church. Read the historical information.
On September 6th the high council met to discuss a Indian massacre of the wagon train. Some said yes and some said no. Haight one of the presidents sent a rider on the 7th to Salt Lake to ask Young what he thought they should do. It was a round trip six day ride.
Now is when you want to ask, if Young commanded the massacre to happen already before this meeting, why did a council meet to discuss if one should take place and why was there disagreements and why was a rider sent the next day to ask for Young's permission to commit that massacre or not to do it if indeed, like Smurf believes, that Young had already given orders for it to happen? If Young had commanded the massacre to happen, there would have been a council to inform the elders what they were being commanded by their prophet to do. Because this was a Mormon militia that was going to preform the massacre, any one saying no to involvement could have been shot for treason. There would have been no dissenting votes. There would have been no rider dispatched to SL. Young wouldn't have wrote a note to not harm the wagon train.
On the same day the rider was dispatched, Haight leading the militia attacked the wagon train. They committed their horrendous actions from the 7th to the 11th. The rider with a letter from Young telling Haight and others not to harm the wagon train arrived on the 13th.
What these men did they did of their own accord. They didn't do it from church teachings. It's also recorded they weren't going to massacre as many as they did. They were mainly going after the men. But someone in the group thought people in the wagon train saw they were whites and might have recognized them. At this point, the men decided to massacre all except little children so there weren't any witnesses.
As scholars on both sides have widely agreed, these men at first were carrying out a 'revenge killing'. Not a blood atonement killing. Not a church doctrine killing. Read the historical information.
Here is some more information to read:

"Evidently Brigham Young had promised all of the Fancher cattle to local Indian leaders:

"...Hamblin and some twelve Indian chiefs on September first met with Brigham Young and his most trusted interpreter, 49-year-old Dimick B. Huntington, at Great Salt Lake. Taking part in this pow-wow were Kanosh, the Mormon chief of the Pahvants; Ammon, half-brother of Walker; Tutsegabit, head chief of the Piedes; Youngwuds, another Piede chieftain, and other leaders of desert bands along the Santa Clara and Virgin rivers.

"Little was known of what they talked about until recently when it came to light that Huntington (apparently speaking for Young) told the chiefs that he 'gave them all the cattle that had gone to Cal[ifornia by] the south rout[e].' The gift 'made them open their eyes,' he said. But 'you have told us not to steal,' the Indians replied.'So I have,' Huntington said,'but now they have come to fight us & you for when they kill us they will kill you.' The chiefs knew what cattle he was giving them. They belonged to the Baker-Fancher train." (Forgotten Kingdom, p. 167-168)"

this is from:

http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/mmm_famil...

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#3875 Feb 6, 2013
Grandpasmurf952 wrote:
There was a mystic in Ancient China who once said "He who knows does not say, he who says does not know."
You can draw whatever implications you like from that.
The plain implication is that it proves you don't know what you say. Or any of the rest of us for that matter in these threads.
Jeff

San Jose, CA

#3876 Feb 6, 2013
Tony C wrote:
<quoted text>
When marriages are solid without children, society still benefits.
When marriages are solid with adopted children, society still benefits.
When marriages are solid with children born via surrogate, society still benefits.
You either ban all marriages without potential of procreation, or you can't ban any marriages without potential of procreation.
Same sex marriage offers no positive benefits to society. What it does is to promote unhealthy sexual practices.

Only relationships that can naturally procreate should be allowed to marry.

Jazybird58

“Reality bites”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#3877 Feb 6, 2013
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
When marriages are solid society benefits. Children have a better chance to perform well and contribute to society. When marriages are bad and end in divorce for example then all kinds of bad things can happen. Children suffer and many can be neglected which can lead to more crimes. Many criminals and gang members come from broken homes. We all pay the bill to house criminals.
OK, well children are not a requirment of marriage.
Most Heterosexual marriages end in divorce, thus creating broken homes. At which point according to you, then result in more crimes.
Now given that 2 gay men or 2 lesbians will not procreate, its a reasonable line of thought that the crime rate should lower. You see if they adopt children that are tossed to the curb by fine Christians like yourself, the children will in fact prosper in a stable home. Perhalps christian hetrosexuals should not be allowed to have children, or if they do the children should be taken away and given to gay parrents. If youcheck you will see that most gay men and lesbians hold a higher education than their heterosexual counter parts. Given that , they will most likly see that their children also attend schools of that magnatude.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#3878 Feb 6, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
So, you weren't discussing here in the United States......and if so.....you were discussing affairs of Native Americans BEFORE White folks arrived......fair enough!!!
Oh and by the way......what those other Countries do have NO BEARING on how things happen in this Country!!!
As recent as the 1800's and into the 1900's, it still happened. A father owning land would give a parcel to his son or daughter that's marrying and, neighbour families would come to help construct a home and barn. How do I know this besides from history that I have read? I have farming/ranching ancestors that did this as recent as the 1930's in Montana.
By the way, the traditions/laws/customs/religi ous practices all brought to this country by the earliest settlers and even by modern immigrants had/have a deep impact on how things happened/happen in this country.
Jane Dodo

West New York, NJ

#3879 Feb 6, 2013
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
It was not until the past few years that people got confused about what marriage is. Marriage has everything to do with gender. Without it we could not produce the next generation. Traditional marriage is the best place to raise a family and the next generation.
In case you skipped health class, marriage is not required to produce the next generation.
Jeff

San Jose, CA

#3880 Feb 6, 2013
Jazybird58 wrote:
<quoted text>
OK, well children are not a requirment of marriage.
Most Heterosexual marriages end in divorce, thus creating broken homes. At which point according to you, then result in more crimes.
Now given that 2 gay men or 2 lesbians will not procreate, its a reasonable line of thought that the crime rate should lower. You see if they adopt children that are tossed to the curb by fine Christians like yourself, the children will in fact prosper in a stable home. Perhalps christian hetrosexuals should not be allowed to have children, or if they do the children should be taken away and given to gay parrents. If youcheck you will see that most gay men and lesbians hold a higher education than their heterosexual counter parts. Given that , they will most likly see that their children also attend schools of that magnatude.
One of the problems is that homosexual relationships are not that stable. Consider this:
". In Norway, male same-sex marriages are 50 percent more likely to end in divorce than heterosexual marriages, and female same-sex marriages are an astonishing 167 percent more likely to be dissolved. In Sweden, the divorce risk for male-male partnerships is 50 percent higher than for heterosexual marriages, and the divorce risk for female partnerships is nearly double that for men. This should not be surprising: In the United States, women request approximately two-thirds of divorces in all forms of relationships — and have done so since the start of the 19th century — so it reasonably follows that relationships in which both partners are women are more likely to include someone who wishes to exit."
The Gay Divorcees CHARLES C.W. COOKE
Jane Dodo

West New York, NJ

#3881 Feb 6, 2013
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Same sex marriage offers no positive benefits to society. What it does is to promote unhealthy sexual practices.
Only relationships that can naturally procreate should be allowed to marry.
Well, shucks. It must be very hard for you to realize that reality doesn't operate by what you think it "should" be.

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.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 1 min Strel 25,310
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 1 min cpeter1313 46,440
Maybe god is gay! (Dec '09) 14 min June VanDerMark 13,295
News Doritos makes rainbow chips in support of gay r... (Sep '15) 25 min guest 1,340
News Columbus Bans 'Ex-Gay' Therapy To Minors 59 min cpeter1313 5
News Census suggests counting LGBT, then a oecorrect... 1 hr Elizabeth1912 1
News No LGBTQ category included in Census proposal f... 1 hr Elizabeth1912 1
News 'Reading a book can't turn you gay,' say author... 1 hr Wondering 131
News Why does the Texas criminal code still ban "hom... 3 hr NE Jade 48
The gay cafe for GLBT, friends and family (Oct '09) 15 hr Frankie Rizzo 69,515
More from around the web