Will Gay Marriage Pit Church Against ...

Will Gay Marriage Pit Church Against Church?

There are 16097 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

#391 Jan 22, 2013
Tony C wrote:
<quoted text>
You sound like your feelings are hurt.
Not as hurt as the feelings of all the kids who killed themselves because of hateful and inhumane propaganda put out by the Mormon church (and others.)
Umm not...lol. Dana's pathetic as he loves to tell one sided versions so he can make himself appear to be in the right, of what he states as he purposefully excludes information that works against his own logic.
Some more of you're extremism. You erroneously and slanderously used the words "all kids" and that only reveals a bit of your own deep seeded hate and anger for Mormon people.
See, as I tried to explain to Dana, a word does nothing of it's own. So your accusation that the Mormon church prints hateful and inhumane propaganda about homosexuality is incorrect. The leaders/people of that church generally feel the same about homosexuality as they do about adultery and abortions and other things they deem "sins". They also print(using your words/logic)hateful and inhumane propaganda against adultery, shacking up, swearing, drugs, abortion, premarital sex, pornography, immodest dressing, etc.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#392 Jan 22, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
So you're calling almost all of your ancestors simpletons because they believed marriage was mainly for the hope of having biological children of one's blood line? Why am I not surprised you'd claim such a thing of your own living/dead ancestors...fricking funny.
Senior citizens who usually don't believe in "shacking up" get married so they can be "legally wed" to someone to love and to care for. The elderly don't usually marry to have kids as most have usually already had kids. They marry for companionship. That is why "most" elderly get married/remarried. A few do it for reasons not worth mentioning. So your point is invalid for a comparison.
It doesn't matter what my ancestors thought. We are suppose to grow, and become better people as time goes on, learn from mankind's mistakes, not live in the dark ages.

DO you support slavery because some of your ancestors believed in that? Wouldn't want to get them upset, now would we?

I don't live to please my ancestors. Maybe that's one of your problems.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#393 Jan 22, 2013
Tony C wrote:
<quoted text>
You sound like your feelings are hurt.
Not as hurt as the feelings of all the kids who killed themselves because of hateful and inhumane propaganda put out by the Mormon church (and others.)
See, like a person with illogical logic, you blame the suicide deaths of gay kids on Mormon teachings. Really an extreme and pathetically made view point. But you wanted it to come off sounding that way, extreme with no care for intelligence to be used when stating what you said. Just like Dana.
Well you made your illogical point. All Mormons are responsible for the suicide deaths of all gay kids. Anything more from that shallow well of intelligence that you wish to exclaim as you just did?
Jane Dodo

West New York, NJ

#394 Jan 22, 2013
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
The majority of scholars etc understand that the Bible is against the practice of homosexuality. Its those that want to justify homosexual practices that pervert the Bible to support it.
If homosexuality is natural then why are the sexual organs of men not designed for it? If its natural, then why is it so deadly to those who engage in it?
Just because someone has a desire for something does not mean its right or healthy. We know this is the case for many things including the practice of same sex sexual practices.
Fortunately, most scholars agree that your religious beliefs shouldn't dictate public policy in a free society.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#395 Jan 22, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Proof and absolutely nothing but proof of your un-Christian deceiving mentality. Fricking half truth lying pathetic not a Christian by any means...lol. How common of you.
Why don't you tell the other half of the story deceitful one? What, wouldn't your post sound as well if you'd tell the whole story? Fricking half truth liar. And you claim yourself a Christian that tells the truth? You aren't a Christian and you are a liar by not telling the truth.
Why don't you tell these folks how you and nomo blamed all Mormon parents for the suicide deaths of all gay teens? Why don't you tell these folks how extreme you and nomo were for weeks, trying to show how every active and non-active Mormon parent were responsible for the death of every gay teen suicide that happened? Why don't you tell these folks how you and nomo wouldn't speak with any intelligence in that matter? That it was a blame Mormon parents for all gay teen suicide deaths?
Why don't you explain that as you went extreme with your stupidity of thought, I sarcastically went the opposite direction as you were going and did as you did?
Fricking half truth lying fake *ssed Christian. You need to quit telling people you're a Christian while involving yourself in so much open deceit and pathetic lies just so you can have what you think is something vicious to say about someone.
I blame parents whole embrace homophobic teachings, calling it the will of God, and destroying the self value of LDS gay teens. Yes, it is part of the problem. They care more about serving the will and needs of a godless, sick pervert gospel of Jesus Christ than they do their own flesh and blood. Oh, but how they will cry for their died children after it happens, and wonder why it happened to them.

They do belong to a church that teaches their kids that they would rather their kids come home in a coffin than loss their chastity. That is a sick excuse for a religion.

For someone who is so concerned about how I post, you sure are getting to have a filthy mouth yourself. Do as you say and not as you do, is that your new view? You'd make a good Mormon prophet.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#396 Jan 22, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
See, like a person with illogical logic, you blame the suicide deaths of gay kids on Mormon teachings. Really an extreme and pathetically made view point. But you wanted it to come off sounding that way, extreme with no care for intelligence to be used when stating what you said. Just like Dana.
Well you made your illogical point. All Mormons are responsible for the suicide deaths of all gay kids. Anything more from that shallow well of intelligence that you wish to exclaim as you just did?
Oh how you love to make claims that people didn't say. No one said that Mormons are responsible for all gay teen suicides(and you know that, but you are just dishonest, as usual), but they certainly are responsible for gay LDS teens.
Let us know when you can read basic English, or at least debate in it.
Call 911, another strawman down! LOL!!!

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#397 Jan 22, 2013
Tony C wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no difference between sexual sins and non-sexual sins. That's modern made-up nonsense used to justify bigotry against gay people. A sin is a sin. You break one, you broke 'em all.
Not true. Sins are sins. But there was an obvious difference in punishment for the type of sin one committed through out the OT alone.
Even Jesus stated a difference. Remember what he said of hurting the innocent,(children in his example) that it was better if the offender attached themselves to a stone and drowned themselves? No forgiveness in that instance.
Sexual sins were especially grievous. You could be killed for most sexual sins. Eating shell fish usually didn't require death for a punishment. Jesus never stated punishment for sins would end. He just taught we should be more forgiving and less punishing.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#398 Jan 22, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Umm not...lol. Dana's pathetic as he loves to tell one sided versions so he can make himself appear to be in the right, of what he states as he purposefully excludes information that works against his own logic.
Some more of you're extremism. You erroneously and slanderously used the words "all kids" and that only reveals a bit of your own deep seeded hate and anger for Mormon people.
See, as I tried to explain to Dana, a word does nothing of it's own. So your accusation that the Mormon church prints hateful and inhumane propaganda about homosexuality is incorrect. The leaders/people of that church generally feel the same about homosexuality as they do about adultery and abortions and other things they deem "sins". They also print(using your words/logic)hateful and inhumane propaganda against adultery, shacking up, swearing, drugs, abortion, premarital sex, pornography, immodest dressing, etc.
And they teach their kids they would rather them be dead then loss their chastity while worshiping one of the biggest perverts to ever walk the earth. Nice fricking church you love there.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#399 Jan 22, 2013
Tony C wrote:
The reason that comes up is because people tend to ignorantly quote Leviticus as an anti-gay passage, yet they ignore on the very same page prohibitions against eating shellfish, blending fibers, etc. We don't bring it up. Your side does. But it is the obvious and thorough rebuttal when they do.
I agree how the ignorant use Leviticus and other verses for homosexuality.
The verse like others obviously spoke against a sexual action, not a sexual attraction.
What is good and bad concerning sexual actions and the Bible is what's debated for our time, not the eating of shell fish etc. To reference a verse in the OT to support similar verses in the NT doesn't mean one has to support all the laws in the OT.
Sexual sin is sexual sin. The Bible speaks against all the main forms of sexual sin humans partake in that are outside the marriage of a man and woman. That is how the Bible was written. You either accept it or you don't.
If you read the Bible, you would note that God stated one position about human relationships. He didn't state which were good and which were bad. He didn't define several and critique each one.
To summarize it, God said a man was to leave his parents and to find a wife for a relationship so they could be one flesh to produce offspring.
It was a simple commandment. It was one of his very first commandments. He specifically told us what to do for a human relationship and why. He knew we would do it or we wouldn't.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#400 Jan 22, 2013
Tony C wrote:
<quoted text>
That's what they tell you in those crazy emails, right?
Ignorant fool.
I'm bisexual. I have had many, many, many same sex friends in relationships where one acted the role of the wife and one acted the role of the husband due to dominant and non-dominant mentalities. Some even referred to each other as wife and husband.
Some don't use "wife-husband" terminology in same sex relationships. But you're ignorant for perpetuating a myth that there are no "husband wife" same sex relationships and you claim your gay? What, are you a sheltered gay where no one in your vicinity in same sex relationships use the words wife or husband for each other? That I would like to see :)

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#401 Jan 22, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Umm not...lol. Dana's pathetic as he loves to tell one sided versions so he can make himself appear to be in the right, of what he states as he purposefully excludes information that works against his own logic.
Some more of you're extremism. You erroneously and slanderously used the words "all kids" and that only reveals a bit of your own deep seeded hate and anger for Mormon people.
See, as I tried to explain to Dana, a word does nothing of it's own. So your accusation that the Mormon church prints hateful and inhumane propaganda about homosexuality is incorrect. The leaders/people of that church generally feel the same about homosexuality as they do about adultery and abortions and other things they deem "sins". They also print(using your words/logic)hateful and inhumane propaganda against adultery, shacking up, swearing, drugs, abortion, premarital sex, pornography, immodest dressing, etc.
Wow, your reading skills are really bad. I choose my words carefully. Pay attention when you read them.

I did not say "all kids." I said the phrase "all the kids who killed themselves." Big difference. Either way, your charge of slander is silly and inappropriate. Most of that whole paragraph made no sense.(Also, the word is "your," not "you're" - but that indicates the low intelligence of the person with whom I am attempting to converse, appropriately lowering my expectations for future exchanges.)

Also "deep seeded hate" should be "deep seated hate" unless you have me planting Mormon seeds in the ground.

And I hold no such hatred for the Mormon church. I dislike them, I think they should be taxed, and they overstepped their bounds interfering in my marriage, including but not limited to the prop 8 case. THAT is a lot of the propaganda to which I referred. Note propaganda need not be "in print" nor did I ever say it was. Read carefully.

You are insulting us by comparing my marriage to adultery, abortion, drugs, etc. So don't expect us to be nice to you in return. I don't see adulterers killing themselves over church propaganda. But gay children do. And that's your fault.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#402 Jan 22, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
See, like a person with illogical logic, you blame the suicide deaths of gay kids on Mormon teachings. Really an extreme and pathetically made view point. But you wanted it to come off sounding that way, extreme with no care for intelligence to be used when stating what you said. Just like Dana.
Well you made your illogical point. All Mormons are responsible for the suicide deaths of all gay kids. Anything more from that shallow well of intelligence that you wish to exclaim as you just did?
Well you certainly didn't say anything to refute it - just a pointless tirade.

When you and your church and other churches support such nonsense (anti-gay propaganda, reparative therapy, the very posts you are posting on this message board which may well be being read by 13 year old girls and boys) then yes, the blood is on your hands. Period. Simple cause and effect.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#404 Jan 22, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Not true. Sins are sins. But there was an obvious difference in punishment for the type of sin one committed through out the OT alone.
Even Jesus stated a difference. Remember what he said of hurting the innocent,(children in his example) that it was better if the offender attached themselves to a stone and drowned themselves? No forgiveness in that instance.
Sexual sins were especially grievous. You could be killed for most sexual sins. Eating shell fish usually didn't require death for a punishment. Jesus never stated punishment for sins would end. He just taught we should be more forgiving and less punishing.
I guess that's the Mormon perspective. It's certainly not the Catholic perspective. You break one commandment, you break 'em all.

But even in your example, if things were punishable by death, they'd be a lot more clear if any of the bibles were valid.

You don't have a leg to stand on.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#405 Jan 22, 2013
Tony C wrote:
<quoted text>
You will twist anything to rationalize your prejudice.
Most of our ancestors were not faced with this question in the manner it is being faced today. There were far fewer "out" people. There was far more stereotyping. But most people today "get it." Why don't you?
You can make excuses for the elderly all you want, and you can play games of "most" or "few." But the fact is, senior citizens who have never been married and never had children still get married and have no challenge to their legal marriages. If you want to say that they marry for "companionship" then so do we.
Now go ahead and contradict yourself again, hypocrite.(What did the bibles say about hypocrites?)
What rant are you on about? He stated "Only a simpleton would think that marriage is only for having children." That train of thought existed for thousands of years. Yet he speaks like humanity dropped that point of view of marriage and what it's for in a single day.
I'll bet if you checked surveys did of kids and youth,(influenced by adults in their thinking) you'd find they think marriage is for people that want kids. Not that marriage is for people that don't want kids.
And his trying to compare why older people married was an invalid comparison. Most older people have been married once or more times. Neither do they marry to have kids. They marry for companion ship.
Read the post I was responding to.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#406 Jan 22, 2013
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
THANK YOU! And what does this idiot know about my ancestors and their views anyway? He loves to assume, showing why he acts like an ass all the time.
I know that you called your ancestors "simpletons" as you did people today that think marriage is mainly for those that want to have children. There are those that marry today but not to have kids. That is true. But most newly weds that marry, EVEN SAME SEX COUPLES marry and hope to have kids. Thus the reasoning why most believe those newly weds that marry, they marry to have kids in a legal binding relationship.
Jeff

San Jose, CA

#407 Jan 22, 2013
Tony C wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Which bible? Can you prove that any version is the 100% inerrant and intact Word of God? I'll answer for you: no, you can't.
2. If homosexuality is not natural then why is it found in nature?
3. Your "deadly" statistics are a myth. What was your argument before 1980? I'll answer for you: "Duh..."
4. Just because someone doesn't understand something does not mean it's wrong or unhealthy. We know many groups who have gone down this road based on prejudice before. We repudiate them, and you.
There is no passage in any manuscript that can rightfully be interpreted to approve of homosexuality. Not one.
If homosexuality is found in nature its aberrant. The reason is that its does not lead to any survival advantage or to the procreation.
If you want to use nature as a justification for homosexuality as being normal why stop there? Spiders eat their young? Should we emulate that to?

The stats on homosexual diseases are not myths. Get serious.
These stats prove how unhealthy gay sex is. You can argue with me all you want. Its the facts that prove you wrong and you know it.
Catholic Girl

United States

#408 Jan 22, 2013
Tony C wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah we really don't care what you think. Of course you can dislike anyone you want.
But as the law continues to come correct, you will not be able to legally discriminate against us. That's all that matters.
Law doesn't place any fear in my heart. You gays keep pushing this crap upon the people only to try and show that its normal. But sweety it is NOT Normal. Only wickedness prevales.
The one that does place fear in me is God, as He should.
God loves you, please make Him happy by Praising Him today.
Catholic Girl

United States

#409 Jan 22, 2013
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no passage in any manuscript that can rightfully be interpreted to approve of homosexuality. Not one.
If homosexuality is found in nature its aberrant. The reason is that its does not lead to any survival advantage or to the procreation.
If you want to use nature as a justification for homosexuality as being normal why stop there? Spiders eat their young? Should we emulate that to?
The stats on homosexual diseases are not myths. Get serious.
These stats prove how unhealthy gay sex is. You can argue with me all you want. Its the facts that prove you wrong and you know it.
Jeff there's one thing you forgot to mention here. The only difference between Gods creation of man and the animal is that God gave man free will. Man has the ability to pick the right path to take.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#410 Jan 22, 2013
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
It doesn't matter what my ancestors thought. We are suppose to grow, and become better people as time goes on, learn from mankind's mistakes, not live in the dark ages.
DO you support slavery because some of your ancestors believed in that? Wouldn't want to get them upset, now would we?
I don't live to please my ancestors. Maybe that's one of your problems.
Absolutely does matter. Nearly every single belief and disbelief we have this very day in 2013 is predicated upon what our ancestors beliefs and disbeliefs were.
Marriage in the past was the avenue one took who wanted to have a family. So obviously if you didn't want a family or couldn't have one because say how that society felt against say same sex relations or shacking up, you didn't get married.
And their choices are only viewed as mistakes through your opinion. Future generations will view our choices as mistakes as you view your ancestors choices as mistakes.
No matter what your singular opinion is, life always has two perspectives contrary to your thinking.
You know the difference between forced labour and chosen labour? One is paid and one isn't. They both do the labour needs that someone can't do by themselves or doesn't want to do by themselves or are just to lazy to do themselves. And if they didn't do the labour correctly, one was beaten and one was fired and left with nothing.
LowellGuy

United States

#411 Jan 22, 2013
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no passage in any manuscript that can rightfully be interpreted to approve of homosexuality. Not one.
If homosexuality is found in nature its aberrant. The reason is that its does not lead to any survival advantage or to the procreation.
If you want to use nature as a justification for homosexuality as being normal why stop there? Spiders eat their young? Should we emulate that to?
The stats on homosexual diseases are not myths. Get serious.
These stats prove how unhealthy gay sex is. You can argue with me all you want. Its the facts that prove you wrong and you know it.
Aw, I thought you had disappeared, but I see you're just hiding from me so you can avoid answering my questions and learning. And we were just about to get you to learn what "contrapositive" means. Come on back if you would like to better yourself intellectually.

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 A 2nd former Hershey School student says he was... 12 min Bob 10
News Michigan sued after gay couples are rejected fo... 22 min Ex Senator Santpo... 36
News Former Missouri college wrestler sentenced for ... 28 min Ex Senator Santpo... 8
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 28 min River Tam 56,092
News Downers library official faces removal after re... 32 min BHS alum 2
News 'Christian Militant' Hopes More Police Officers... 51 min Ex Senator Santpo... 4
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 1 hr Rose_NoHo 9,964
News Judge rejects couple's argument for refusing ga... 1 hr Bernice 69
News Gay teen against same-sex marriage heckled at u... 2 hr Ex Senator Santpo... 52
News Senate hopeful Roy Moore: gay sex is the 'same ... 2 hr Prisoner of my Mo... 29
More from around the web