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
3,761 - 3,780 of 16,105 Comments Last updated Aug 28, 2013

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4395
Feb 8, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Romans Road wrote:
<quoted text>
It's quite the opposite. Us Christians have to hold your hand and keep explaining EVERY single thing to you. I couldn't simplify my posts any more than what I have been doing.
Posting with you Topix unbelievers gives me a new appreciation for pre-school and kindergarten teachers. The saddest thing is you people call yourselves adults........
Sorry, but you really have it all wrong.......IF you were a "TRUE/REAL" Christian, you'd know what God's true message is and that it DOESN'T come from some book that was written by mere men to control the masses.......just as you try to use that same mythical book to control those who don't believe as you do today........by judging them and condemning them even though you have NO AUTHORITY to do so.

Most Adults think for themselves, even those who are "TRUE/REAL" Christians can do that and they also know God's true message and pass that message along as is their duty under the guidance of God......you have shown that you have no ability to think for yourself, you THINK that YOU know more than God and figure that if folks don't believe like you, then you will beat them into submission or banish them to hell!!!

Sorry RR, but in this Country a Citizen HAS THE RIGHT to believe differently than you or not to believe at all if they so choose to.......and though most accept your right to believe as you see fit, you can't seem to do the same......try learning a little compassion and humility......it might make you appear more Christ-like!!!!
Jeff

San Jose, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4396
Feb 8, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>I am aware of what the Catechism teaches now dear, but we are talking about what they were actually doing in the Middle Ages, remember?
Its irrelevant to the discussion of same sex marriage. What is relevant is what the RCC's catechism on this issue which is in line with Scripture.

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4397
Feb 8, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Romans Road wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no version of Christianity. Jesus Christ is the way, the truth, and the life; NO ONE comes to the Father but by Him.
I don't have religion, I have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.
Actually there are other versions of Religion and even Christianity......otherwise there would not be any Fundamentalist/Born-Again Christians......but somehow you folks think that your beliefs are all that matter and they aren't!!!

You do know that his name NEVER was Jesus Christ.....it was simply Jesus and he is nothing more than the SON of God, not God, right?
Jeff

San Jose, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4398
Feb 8, 2013
 

Judged:

3

1

1

This is so good it needs to be posted:

"Homosexual "Marriage"

I'm a lawyer and a philosopher. I trade in arguments. To this day, I have seen no good argument for altering the institution of marriage so as to allow two men or two women to marry each other. All I've seen are slogans ("Marriage Equality"), intimidation ("homophobe!"), and what Roger Scruton calls "shallow arguments."

The concept of equality is purely formal. All it says is that likes must be treated alike and unlikes differently, in proportion to their differences. If you say that equality requires homosexual "marriage," then you're saying that, with respect to marriage, there are no relevant differences between two men, two women, or a man and a woman. But this must be established, not merely asserted! Surely there is a strong presumption against tinkering with the institution of marriage, which has served society long and well. To rebut this presumption, strong arguments are required. Nothing but weak arguments have been produced (when arguments have been offered at all).

Ours is a shallow, feeble-minded age. Merely using the laudatory "equality" in a slogan suffices to persuade weak minds. What's next: marriage between adults and children; marriage between humans and animals; marriage between three or more adults; marriage between children? Call it "marriage equality" and half the battle is won."

http://keithburgess-jackson.typepad.com/blog/...

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4399
Feb 8, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Its irrelevant to the discussion of same sex marriage. What is relevant is what the RCC's catechism on this issue which is in line with Scripture.
Actually that is IRRELEVANT because this Country is not a THEOCRACY and so how one believes has no bearing on the laws of this Country!!!

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4400
Feb 8, 2013
 
Romans Road wrote:
<quoted text>
I love my "neighbor" so much that I wish to spend eternity in Heaven with you. Jesus will forgive you of your sins, if you come to Him with a truly repentant heart and ask.
But marriage was and will always be between a MAN and a WOMAN. That's not even debatable.
The question is, who would want to spend an eternity with you?

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4401
Feb 8, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Jeff wrote:
Its irrelevant to the discussion of same sex marriage. What is relevant is what the RCC's catechism on this issue which is in line with Scripture.
If the Catholics really want to pray that their Catechism is in line with scripture and what God really wants, they can pray to their heart's content, but it is irrelevant to the point I was making to someone else, that same sex marriages have occurred throughout history in many cultures and that even the Christian Churches have offered them a form of wedding, just not called marriage.

Get it now?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4402
Feb 8, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Its irrelevant to the discussion of same sex marriage. What is relevant is what the RCC's catechism on this issue which is in line with Scripture.
Who cares about RCC's dumb ass catechism? I sure don't.
Jeff

San Jose, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4403
Feb 8, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Jazybird58 wrote:
<quoted text>Still missing the boat.
Why is YOUR version of Christianity better than all others?
What makes your religion/god any more valid than any other????
Because its true.
Jeff

San Jose, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4404
Feb 8, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Who cares about RCC's dumb ass catechism? I sure don't.
And we don't care what you think either.

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4405
Feb 8, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Jeff wrote:
This is so good it needs to be posted:
It is nothing more than his opinion and there are just as many lawyers who have arguments in favor of the right to marry for Same-Sex Couples.

Did ya have some point?
Jeff

San Jose, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4406
Feb 8, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>If the Catholics really want to pray that their Catechism is in line with scripture and what God really wants, they can pray to their heart's content, but it is irrelevant to the point I was making to someone else, that same sex marriages have occurred throughout history in many cultures and that even the Christian Churches have offered them a form of wedding, just not called marriage.
Get it now?
Same sex marriages have not occurred in the RCC. Where is it approved of in the catechism or in any of its councils?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4407
Feb 8, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>If the Catholics really want to pray that their Catechism is in line with scripture and what God really wants, they can pray to their heart's content, but it is irrelevant to the point I was making to someone else, that same sex marriages have occurred throughout history in many cultures and that even the Christian Churches have offered them a form of wedding, just not called marriage.
Get it now?
Those Catholics pray for all sorts of things. I've seen them pray for weeks over faithful servants of the Lord dying of cancer. They all died horrible deaths. I suppose God doesn't listen to Catholic's prayers. Why do they bother?

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4408
Feb 8, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
And we don't care what you think either.
Obviously, yes you do......otherwise you wouldn't be trying so hard to get us to side with you......lol!!

“Reality bites”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4409
Feb 8, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Because its true.
Why is YOUR version of Christianity better than all others?
What makes your religion/god any more valid than any other????

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4410
Feb 8, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
We got the time to see if group marriage, inter-family marriage and polygamy will become a reality some day. When we have a country of leaders that are willing and able to change the definition of marriage to accommodate homosexuals in their goal of "marriage" then anything is possible. We already know this is possible.
Its the "mentally incompetent" that are promoting same sex marriage. They have already succeeded in legalizing murder via abortions so their is no reason to think they will stop here.
So, you're saying that people who support same-sex marriage are mentally deficient? Great. Now, all you need is evidence to support that. Otherwise, we'll assume that it's nothing more than an ad hominem attack because you know that if you can't support your own argument, and you can't tear down the opposition's argument, you can always demonize your opponent. It's been the tactic of religion for millennia...why stop now, right?

“Shoot for the stars”

Since: Dec 10

Planet Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4411
Feb 8, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Because its true.
Proof!!! Show some evidence and not writings from your bible.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4412
Feb 8, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Same sex marriages have not occurred in the RCC. Where is it approved of in the catechism or in any of its councils?
More to the point: no churches are being forced to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies, despite the claims that it would happen.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4413
Feb 8, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Because its true.
But, they all say that THEIRS is true, too. All of you can't possibly be right. But, you CAN all be wrong. The odds of all of you being wrong are much better than the odds of any one of you being right. I'll play the odds.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4414
Feb 8, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Jeff wrote:
This is so good it needs to be posted:
Gee, thanks.
Jeff wrote:
"Homosexual "Marriage"
This is going to be fun, I just love air "quotes".
Jeff wrote:
I'm a lawyer and a philosopher. I trade in arguments.
After reading this, I hope he's got another line of work, because his trade in arguments is seriously weak.
Jeff wrote:
To this day, I have seen no good argument for altering the institution of marriage so as to allow two men or two women to marry each other.
He obviously hasn't read many arguments or is simply a closed-minded jerk.
Jeff wrote:
All I've seen are slogans ("Marriage Equality"), intimidation ("homophobe!"), and what Roger Scruton calls "shallow arguments."
And he goes with closed-minded jerk, it's no wonder you like him.
Jeff wrote:
The concept of equality is purely formal. All it says is that likes must be treated alike and unlikes differently, in proportion to their differences.
True. But not for much longer, I already know what he's about to say.
Jeff wrote:
If you say that equality requires homosexual "marriage," then you're saying that, with respect to marriage, there are no relevant differences between two men, two women, or a man and a woman.
There is no compelling state interest served by the prohibition of same sex marriages, as a lawyer, he should know that it is the standard by which the individual's right to marry is supposed to be adjudicated. But apparently he didn't take good notes in Constitutional law. For the state, it should not matter if you are entering this legally recognized relationship with someone of the same or opposite sex, as long as they are otherwise legally eligible to marry.
Jeff wrote:
But this must be established, not merely asserted!
It has been, your lawyer/philosopher friend hasn't been paying attention.
Jeff wrote:
Surely there is a strong presumption against tinkering with the institution of marriage, which has served society long and well.
Sorry, but the preservation of tradition isn't an interest of the state.
Jeff wrote:
To rebut this presumption, strong arguments are required. Nothing but weak arguments have been produced (when arguments have been offered at all).
I pity any of his legal/philosophical clients, the man is a moron.
Jeff wrote:
Ours is a shallow, feeble-minded age.
For which he has written a shallow, feeble-minded appeal to tradition as his "best" argument to deny legal equality to same sex couples in marriage.
Jeff wrote:
Merely using the laudatory "equality" in a slogan suffices to persuade weak minds.
Then why wasn't he convinced? His mind is weaker than yours.
Jeff wrote:
What's next: marriage between adults and children; marriage between humans and animals; marriage between three or more adults; marriage between children? Call it "marriage equality" and half the battle is won."
Begin with the fallacy of the appeal to tradition end with the fallacy of the slippery slope. Lame. If this dude is a lawyer, he should sue his law school for malpractice, they taught him to be an idiot and to make really, really, really bad arguments.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

•••