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.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#3901 Feb 6, 2013
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Already answered the elderly question. It is true that children raised in single parent households will most likely have problems. I am not for single parent adoption.
Now answer my questions: should a brother and sister be able to marry each other? How about group marriages?
ANSWER THE QUESTIONS.
Why don't you answer the questions put forth to you first!!!

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#3902 Feb 6, 2013
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you think its a good idea for a woman to have babies out of wedlock?
Regardless of whether it's a good idea or not.....it happens and seeing as our society doesn't hold men responsible for their actions all of the time.......it's none of your concern!!!
Jane Dodo

West New York, NJ

#3903 Feb 6, 2013
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Children born out of wedlock don't do as well.
You mean they don't survive birth?
Jane Dodo

West New York, NJ

#3904 Feb 6, 2013
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you think its a good idea for a woman to have babies out of wedlock?
Should they have abortions instead of babies? Unless you are the father, it is none of your business.
Jeff

San Jose, CA

#3905 Feb 6, 2013
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean they don't survive birth?
No.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#3906 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.
Your first two sentences are lies. Now, I'm going to generously refute them for the last time. Either you acknowledge my refutations, or you clearly rebut them, or I don't bother responding to you anymore. This stuff takes time for me to respond to you, so if you cannot be an honest broker, there is no point in wasting my time.

1. Same sex marriage offers the same positive benefits to society as opposite-sex marriages, including but not limited to: stability, greater likelihood of home ownership and improving that home (and often neighborhoods.) Participants live longer and healthier lives and are less likely to rely on government assistance, and many raise children. Adopting and raising children is one of the biggest contributions to society I can think of. I'm sure there are more, that was just off the top of my head.

You don't get to just say, "No it isn't." You can either prove it isn't true, or acknowledge you were wrong.

2. It does the exact opposite of "promoting unhealthy sexual practices." It virtually eliminates any chances of disease because it promotes monogamy. That is basic and cannot be denied. If gay people don't get married, that doesn't mean they won't be together; it means they'll generally have more sex with more random partners, increasing the likelihood of spreading disease. Marriage naturally curbs this.

Again, you don't get to just say, "No it isn't." Logically argue how gay marriage does not reduce promiscuity, I dare you.

3. If "only relationships that can naturally procreate should be allowed to marry" then you realize you are eliminating senior citizens from marrying, people with certain disorders, and you will necessarily have to require a fertility test before granting a marriage license.

Talk your way out of that one.
Jeff

San Jose, CA

#3908 Feb 6, 2013
Tony C wrote:
<quoted text>
Your first two sentences are lies. Now, I'm going to generously refute them for the last time. Either you acknowledge my refutations, or you clearly rebut them, or I don't bother responding to you anymore. This stuff takes time for me to respond to you, so if you cannot be an honest broker, there is no point in wasting my time.
1. Same sex marriage offers the same positive benefits to society as opposite-sex marriages, including but not limited to: stability, greater likelihood of home ownership and improving that home (and often neighborhoods.) Participants live longer and healthier lives and are less likely to rely on government assistance, and many raise children. Adopting and raising children is one of the biggest contributions to society I can think of. I'm sure there are more, that was just off the top of my head.
You don't get to just say, "No it isn't." You can either prove it isn't true, or acknowledge you were wrong.
2. It does the exact opposite of "promoting unhealthy sexual practices." It virtually eliminates any chances of disease because it promotes monogamy. That is basic and cannot be denied. If gay people don't get married, that doesn't mean they won't be together; it means they'll generally have more sex with more random partners, increasing the likelihood of spreading disease. Marriage naturally curbs this.
Again, you don't get to just say, "No it isn't." Logically argue how gay marriage does not reduce promiscuity, I dare you.
3. If "only relationships that can naturally procreate should be allowed to marry" then you realize you are eliminating senior citizens from marrying, people with certain disorders, and you will necessarily have to require a fertility test before granting a marriage license.
Talk your way out of that one.
Where are the stats to back your claims up? Show me via stats that overall HIV, AIDs and STD's go down because of same sex marriage.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#3909 Feb 6, 2013
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
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
LOL.

So, here's the deal: this will repair itself over time.

What you don't realize is that gay people have historically gone through a trial by fire via their "coming out" and the resulting negative messaging from society. This tends to harm people in some way.

I know when I was single and dating, I had to rule out so many people to whom I may have been attracted and had things in common, but who had "hang-ups." In addition to the usual hang-ups one might experience with straight people - insecurity, lack of confidence, fear of commitment, etc.- there are the additional pressures of internalized homophobia (to varying degrees) overcompensating masculinity, no communication with some or all of their family and/or being kicked out of their home - all these things compound regular dating issues.

As society stops torturing gay people, they will grow up with less baggage and will be better able to maintain a relationship.

Also as younger gay people have more stable gay married role models and grow up thinking this is a real possibility for them, you will see things turn around in that regard.

Jazybird58

“Reality bites”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#3910 Feb 6, 2013
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you think its a good idea for a woman to have babies out of wedlock?
Seeing that I am an atheist, I have common sense. I use birth control, and I taught my grown children to do the same. It appears that the production of bastard children is a christian/religious problem. That being said, I see no harm in a woman having a child with out a husband. I am not an overbearing misogynistic asswipe, that thinks a single parrent is incapable of rearing a child.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#3911 Feb 6, 2013
Grandpasmurf952 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
I found links for the above. Ex-mo Sandra Tanner's opinion. Her ancestor took part in the massacre. Even she thinks the massacre happened in parts or escalated from a simple plan to steal the cattle as had been done to a previous wagon train by 'supposed' Mormon men.
"Part of the motivation for the first attack on the wagon train seems to have been an effort to steal their cattle."
Note she uses the words "first attack". Those that have read this story usually agree there was an initial attack to rob the train of it's cattle, NOT to massacre the people of the wagon train.
But when this initial attack was fouled by the wagon people, the Indians and Mormon militia regrouped to decide what to do next as the train had made a circle to defend itself after the first failed attack.
So did young give the Indians permission to take the cattle? The weak hearsay circumstantial evidence leans to a yes. Pretending that Young gave the Indians permission to steal the cattle and, a Chief said Young taught him not to steal but now for some ludicrous reason Young is justifying theft and telling him it's okay to steal, logic dictates Young would have sent word soon after the 1st of August to Haight telling him and his militia to help the Indians take the cattle.
So on the 6th of September Haight in church spoke as usual of the church being attacked by the American government and how they were to be prepared, because the US Army was on it's way to the Utah Territory to kill and disband the church once and for all and said who knows what else to scare the crap out of everyone be it true or a lie.
The high council met and it may have went from helping the Indians to steal cattle to maybe killing all the men folk. Many elders there didn't agree with urging the Indians to steal the cattle and commit a massacre. So Haight said he would send council to Young to learn of what they should do and the next day on the morning of the 7th Haight sent a rider to Young.
Later that same day, Haight and his militia met with Indians and attacked the wagon train. This produces questions.
Haight obviously told his elders they were going to wait before helping the Indians to hear from Young. That meant the Indians had a prescribed day to ready themselves for this attack to take the cattle. Since the Indians were with them on the same day Haight sent the rider out, the Indians had to have been camped some where near by Cedar City. Because Haight ignored his own instructions of waiting to hear from Young and took off on the same day he sent the rider off to attack the Indians.
Why would Haight do that? Why ignore his own instructions to his elders to wait for Young's reply? Did Haight some how feel he didn't need Young's opinion? Or did Haight decide to carry out the initial command from Young to help steal the cattle but not to commit a massacre? Many elders in the area didn't show to helping Haight that had been at that council. They made themselves disappear fast and quick after that council so they couldn't be disciplined for refusing to participate.
I don't see evidence that the reason for this attack was to instantly massacre well over a hundred people. I believe things got out of hand. Irrational fears surfaced and irrational choices were made. Did these men that participated in this massacre really believe no one would miss a wagon train with over a hundred people in it?
That final act points to psychological insanity of thought that is usually predicated on irrational fears and paranoias. This massacre had nothing to do with doctrinal teachings. But it obviously had to do with irrational fears and paranoia.

“Shoot for the stars”

Since: Dec 10

Planet Earth

#3912 Feb 6, 2013
Jazybird58 wrote:
<quoted text>Seeing that I am an atheist, I have common sense. I use birth control, and I taught my grown children to do the same. It appears that the production of bastard children is a christian/religious problem. That being said, I see no harm in a woman having a child with out a husband. I am not an overbearing misogynistic asswipe, that thinks a single parrent is incapable of rearing a child.
Exactly! There are also single women who choose to bear children or adopt as well as single men adopting too or whatever arrangement decided to have a child. Ben Stein comes to mind when he adopted a son as a single man.

Jazybird58

“Reality bites”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#3913 Feb 6, 2013
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Where are the stats to back your claims up? Show me via stats that overall HIV, AIDs and STD's go down because of same sex marriage.
Hi Jeff, let me help you out with this. On a world wide scale, STDS including HIV and AIDS are far more prevalent in heterosexuals. Just thought you should know.
Jeff

San Jose, CA

#3914 Feb 6, 2013
Jazybird58 wrote:
<quoted text>Seeing that I am an atheist, I have common sense. I use birth control, and I taught my grown children to do the same. It appears that the production of bastard children is a christian/religious problem. That being said, I see no harm in a woman having a child with out a husband. I am not an overbearing misogynistic asswipe, that thinks a single parrent is incapable of rearing a child.
Would you want your daughter raising 2-3 children without a husband-father around? Do you think she could do it all on her own?

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#3915 Feb 6, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Is it happening today in 2013 here in the United States? if not, then it irrelevant!!!
Sorry, but this Country and our laws were NOT founded on deep religious or other practices and haven't been the custom in that last 83 years by your family ancestors!!!
Again, there are some families that still do that, but not communities!!!
Actually it does happen today in the US but in ways you wouldn't appreciate in considering. I'll give you a hint. What do wealthy people do who own land and homes concerning their immediate family?
Uh-huh, to the usually productive off spring they get a place to call their own that the parent owns. Other times they give them a business they no longer want to run. Other times they give their off spring the summer cabin they once owned as was done in our family.
Americans pass on already built homes and businesses to their children and relatives all the time. No, it's not done by communities any more as it once was done but the practice is still being done by families all the time.
By the way, HUD does have a program for the not so well off to apply to have their own home that is built by the community. One major requirement: they have to help other people in their community to help build houses that will soon belong to other people in the same program. Can you guess it's name?:)
Jeff

San Jose, CA

#3916 Feb 6, 2013
Jazybird58 wrote:
<quoted text>Hi Jeff, let me help you out with this. On a world wide scale, STDS including HIV and AIDS are far more prevalent in heterosexuals. Just thought you should know.
That might be. I`m asking where are the stats that show same sex marriage will lead to less disease and death among homosexuals. Haven't seen any yet. Have you?

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#3917 Feb 6, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually it does happen today in the US but in ways you wouldn't appreciate in considering. I'll give you a hint. What do wealthy people do who own land and homes concerning their immediate family?
Uh-huh, to the usually productive off spring they get a place to call their own that the parent owns. Other times they give them a business they no longer want to run. Other times they give their off spring the summer cabin they once owned as was done in our family.
Americans pass on already built homes and businesses to their children and relatives all the time. No, it's not done by communities any more as it once was done but the practice is still being done by families all the time.
By the way, HUD does have a program for the not so well off to apply to have their own home that is built by the community. One major requirement: they have to help other people in their community to help build houses that will soon belong to other people in the same program. Can you guess it's name?:)
If it's happening today in the United States, please provide that information.......I don't care about Russia, Africa or some native tribe in the Rain forest!!!

You said COMMUNITIES.......they are not the same as WEALTHY FAMILIES.......and this is what I'm trying to get at, but you keep changing the situation!!!

Again, you are EXPLAINING FAMILIES, but you started out with COMMUNITIES......they are NOT the same!!!

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#3918 Feb 6, 2013
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
That might be. I`m asking where are the stats that show same sex marriage will lead to less disease and death among homosexuals. Haven't seen any yet. Have you?
Why don't you supply some stats and evidence to all the crap you've posted today?

Jazybird58

“Reality bites”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#3919 Feb 6, 2013
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Would you want your daughter raising 2-3 children without a husband-father around? Do you think she could do it all on her own?
My daughter is not alone, you see she has a family, and we would always support her no matter what. Reguardless of that, I am sure that she would do just fine. You see she was raised to be self sufficient and independent. Why do you think so little of women??? You know Ward, June has a mind and the ability to raise the Beaver with out your sorry ass. Why they cam EVEN be a CEO of a huge business, doctors, lawyers, buss drivers, plumbers hell fire son they can be in the Clergy.

Jazybird58

“Reality bites”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#3920 Feb 6, 2013
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
That might be. I`m asking where are the stats that show same sex marriage will lead to less disease and death among homosexuals. Haven't seen any yet. Have you?
Jeff, think, two men who are not HIV positive, become married and maintain a monogamous marriage, how can they become HIV positive?? Surly not through sex dummy. Now tell me how many lesbians have HIV/AIDS??? Not to many. That being said your still a moron

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#3921 Feb 6, 2013
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't take them away if divorce-abandonment or death is the cause of the single parent.
IF NOT, WHY NOT?

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 Australian Gay-Marriage Crusader Was Fugitive W... 1 hr VOTE TRUMP 3
News Pentagon says no US military support for Turkey... 3 hr Orlando 1
News Appeals court: US law doesn't cover sexual orie... 4 hr Fa-Foxy 3
News Excited by Trump, gay Republicans struggle with... 4 hr Frankie Rizzo 242
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 4 hr Jonah1 15,040
News City Man Charged In Rape Of Warren ..... (Sep '09) 5 hr The Rapist 121
News Austin Loses 'A Safe Space for Gay Men to Go Ha... 6 hr Frankie Rizzo 26
More from around the web