Will Gay Marriage Pit Church Against Church?

Apr 27, 2009 Full story: news.yahoo.com 16,103

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.

Full Story

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#13367 Apr 12, 2013
John from Texas wrote:
<quoted text>
Doom and gloom! Do you have anything positive to share?
For you yeah, repent and be saved from the eternal Hell fire, if you can.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#13368 Apr 13, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm familiar with the debates. I was merely supplying the sources that the other poster did not.
One issue NOT mentioned in the rebuttals is that afrerements were SUPERIOR to marriage contracts because both parties entered into them voluntarily, and neither were considered at any point to be the chattel of the other.
If your accusations were true, it only affirms the fact that they were not marriage.

However, I've never been to a wedding or officiated one where it was not voluntary.

Moreover, I've not only never heard the word 'chattel' used, the challenge has been to consider the other BEFORE one's self, to cherish each other, and the complimentary nature of a male/female union.

Hence the superiority of marriage over any other relationship.

You, on the other hand deceitfully posted a one sided, historically distorted position, and then supported the bigotry with your own.

What does the desperate deceit of your position expose???

Smirk.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#13369 Apr 13, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Quite a few scholars would disagree, don't you think?
Here is something you can't avoid.
Anal sex is inherently harmful, unhealthy and demeaning.
It is a violent act against another person. A violation of design.
A clear oxymoron of sexual intimacy at every level of human existence.
Of that, Paul was right.
Right?
Smile.
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
You've said so before, and are merely choosing to ignore my response.
Again, I am 87 years old, so your "health assertion seems to be in question; the proctologists at my semi-annual exams find no evidence of "harm"; and your assertion of an "inherent" demeaning quality has no weight whatsoever, being a purely imaginary construct peculiar to your ideology and, in fact, an example of the "receding goalposts" fallacy.
Shall I list the other fallacies ... again?
I'm simply pointing out the extreme theological position of a dying minority that the bulk of historical Christianity considers heresy. I have no desire to waste time arguing faith with a dishonest faithless heretic.

Your depravity is further exposed by the silly attempt of an obviously studied person to negate the often posted facts of medical science with his personal claim of sphincter health.

It is sad to see the waste of a intelligent mind fatally distorted by denial. It would be interesting to see the paradigm shift if you accepted the fact that homosexuality is a sexual defect.

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#13370 Apr 13, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
About the scholars ... of course, especially those of one or another of the Saulian schools, but the evidence is there for those who care to make the analyses.
You could start by providing a single one of his predictions that came true in the time-frame he suggested.
2 Timothy 4:3-4 (GW)
A time will come when people will not listen to accurate teachings. Instead, they will follow their own desires and surround themselves with teachers who tell them what they want to hear.
4 People will refuse to listen to the truth and turn to myths.

YOU are a fulfillment of that prophesy.

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#13371 Apr 13, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
Did you know that is the first line of the First Admendment?
Smirk.
<quoted text>
Hardly.
They and you maintain that of all world views, religious ones are excluded.
I simply pointed out the stupidity of that position.
They are in fact, specifically protected.
Smile.
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
By exclusion FROM legislation ... AND from inclusion IN legislation.

Please explain your two points directly to the two points in the First Amendment. Explain how they completely address the points.

I would point out that by your definition, any religious view point is completely discriminated against. Hardly the point or the practice of the Founding Fathers, right?

Smile.
Legal blindness and non-favoritism.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#13372 Apr 13, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
No. The pharisees were arguing points of the M/L/D legal codes. Yeshua made reference to the patriarchal prophetic period. Again, teaching from the prophets.
It is too bad you were not present, you could have corrected Jesus, since the Pharisees failed to do so.

By your age, you didn't miss it by much...

Smile.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#13373 Apr 13, 2013
Still no legally valid justification for prohibiting same-sex marriage?

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#13374 Apr 13, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Quite a few scholars would disagree, don't you think?
Here is something you can't avoid.
Anal sex is inherently harmful, unhealthy and demeaning.
It is a violent act against another person. A violation of design.
A clear oxymoron of sexual intimacy at every level of human existence.
Of that, Paul was right.
Right?
Smile.
<quoted text>
I'm simply pointing out the extreme theological position of a dying minority that the bulk of historical Christianity considers heresy. I have no desire to waste time arguing faith with a dishonest faithless heretic.
Your depravity is further exposed by the silly attempt of an obviously studied person to negate the often posted facts of medical science with his personal claim of sphincter health.
It is sad to see the waste of a intelligent mind fatally distorted by denial. It would be interesting to see the paradigm shift if you accepted the fact that homosexuality is a sexual defect.
Smile.
Down's syndrome is a defect. Should people with Down's syndrome be prohibited from marrying?

What if a woman is born with fallopian tube or uterine defects that make her infertile? Should she be prohibited from marrying?

Should heterosexual couples who engage in anal sex be prohibited from marrying?

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#13375 Apr 13, 2013
dollarsbill wrote:
<quoted text>
Leviticus 20:13 (NKJV)
13 If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.
Yeah, your God wanted people killed for all kinds of things. Gathering firewood on the Sabbath. Making fun of bald people. Marital infidelity.

And, lots of things were abominations. Like eating shrimp.

So, man-on-man sex is just as bad as eating shrimp, and deserves the death penalty just like picking up sticks on a Saturday does. Yeah, I'm gonna have to say your God's rules are for shit, and I must wonder why you'd think they're worthwhile in any way.

Also, who gives a fuck what the Bible says when it comes to making laws in America? Certainly not the Constitution. Rights are not to be determined in America by what anybody's favorite religious text says. EVER. If you want theocracy, check out Iran. They've got it. Or, how about Saudi Arabia? Afghanistan? Theocracies are famous for being bastions of human rights and equality. The kind of places you'd really enjoy.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#13376 Apr 13, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
Did you know that is the first line of the First Admendment?
Smirk.
<quoted text>
Hardly.
They and you maintain that of all world views, religious ones are excluded.
I simply pointed out the stupidity of that position.
They are in fact, specifically protected.
Smile.
<quoted text>
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" is pretty clear. How does codifying religion into law not qualify as establishment of religion? How is that not EXACTLY establishment? What, pray tell, WOULD qualify?

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#13377 Apr 13, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
It SAYS that the Congress will not write any Laws favoring or restricting religion. This hands-off approach has been desribed as an effective "legal blindness" regarding religion. This was only directly breached when Congress wrote Law granting tax exemption to religious organizations. It has been indirectly breached in a lot of little ways.
Our system could really use some revamping for rational consistency.
Absolute separation of Church and State is the best guarantee of the Freedom of Religion for all persons from sectarian coercion.
Watch Egypt closely for the very practical reasons why this is so.
Our founders ALL had near ancestors that knew all-too-well the realities of sectarian war.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =nxdpR5oyCOsXX&list=PL27A9 4D6D1C42B984
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
And the horrors of mixing religion and political power.
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
You are equating our Constitutional practice and Christianity with Islam? Are you serious?

As to tax exemption, they simply caught up with the Constitution. Please note, the FREE exercise of religion.

Snicker.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#13378 Apr 13, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Of COURSE there was extended treatment, but you are ignoring that I was far more messed up than he was, and still awoke from extremis coma. FAR more.
Your ad hominem derision is not a rebuttal.
My mockery of your minimization of the Crucifixion and the silly comparison with your situation in these developed times is hardly ad hominem.

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#13379 Apr 13, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Ad hominem is not a rebuttal.
It's also a Straw Man to include "better" in your statement.
Mockery of silly assertions is not ad hominem. It is exposing the foolishness of your reasoning. Rather than denial, I'd suggest you get real

No straw man at all. I am referring to the ONE study with published survey methods that asserted exactly that.

Interesting that even you would admit how ridiculous it is...

Read this, and then take the time to read the methods and peer reviews of the Longitudinal study;

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19014-c...

And you want to denigrate Regnerus...

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#13380 Apr 13, 2013
Whisgean Zoda wrote:
<quoted text>
It wasn't prohibited by Christianity until the 12th century.
Quoting a horribly mistranslated book is also not proof of anything.
Arsenokoites, the word homosexual is derived from, ACTUALLY refers to temple prostitution. It's roots are Hebrew and the word means the same thing in Hebrew as well. In fact, nowhere does the Bible specifically condemn homosexual activity EXCEPT in Leviticus where it states that "Any man that lays with another man as he would lay with a woman, is an abomination", which is CLEARLY referring to those engaging in bisexual activity.
Effeminate was never used either. It's another mistranslation for the Greek word that means "a soft man". This didn't denote a gay person. It meant a man that was pampered and spoiled because he preferred to be, instead of doing anything for himself. Essentially, spoiled little turds.
Education > dogma
Pure deceit, denial and gay twirl.

And you throw bisexuals under the bus to do it.

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#13381 Apr 13, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
Still no legally valid justification for prohibiting same-sex marriage?
Hardly.

There is still no valid reason for ss couples to be considered marriage by the Law.

At it's most basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary behavior.

ss couples are a defective failure of the very purpose of mating behavior. Literally 'unmarriage'.

Smirk.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#13382 Apr 13, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Down's syndrome is a defect. Should people with Down's syndrome be prohibited from marrying?
What if a woman is born with fallopian tube or uterine defects that make her infertile? Should she be prohibited from marrying?
Should heterosexual couples who engage in anal sex be prohibited from marrying?
The basic essence of marriage is a cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior. A D/S couple, or infertility issue doesn't violate mating behavior. A ss couple does.

I've never said abusive sex is a reason to deny marriage. I've simply pointed out that for gays, anal sex is a violent imitation of natural, normal sex, one of the symptoms of a sexual defect.

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#13383 Apr 13, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, your God wanted people killed for all kinds of things. Gathering firewood on the Sabbath. Making fun of bald people. Marital infidelity.
And, lots of things were abominations. Like eating shrimp.
So, man-on-man sex is just as bad as eating shrimp, and deserves the death penalty just like picking up sticks on a Saturday does. Yeah, I'm gonna have to say your God's rules are for shit, and I must wonder why you'd think they're worthwhile in any way.
Also, who gives a fuck what the Bible says when it comes to making laws in America? Certainly not the Constitution. Rights are not to be determined in America by what anybody's favorite religious text says. EVER. If you want theocracy, check out Iran. They've got it. Or, how about Saudi Arabia? Afghanistan? Theocracies are famous for being bastions of human rights and equality. The kind of places you'd really enjoy.
If you don't want the benefits of Judaism, then don't practice it. No one is forced to be a Jew.

If you want to sacrifice eternity with God to practice abusive sex, then go for it.

But every major religion, science and history all condemn ss couples as a oxymoron of marriage.

You have every right to establish your own relational identity without imposing an imposter relationship on marriage and children.

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#13384 Apr 13, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" is pretty clear. How does codifying religion into law not qualify as establishment of religion? How is that not EXACTLY establishment? What, pray tell, WOULD qualify?
\
Codifying what into law?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#13385 Apr 13, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
If your accusations were true, it only affirms the fact that they were not marriage.
However, I've never been to a wedding or officiated one where it was not voluntary.
Moreover, I've not only never heard the word 'chattel' used, the challenge has been to consider the other BEFORE one's self, to cherish each other, and the complimentary nature of a male/female union.
Hence the superiority of marriage over any other relationship.
You, on the other hand deceitfully posted a one sided, historically distorted position, and then supported the bigotry with your own.
What does the desperate deceit of your position expose???
Smirk.
"Wait what?"

You are trying to make your ignorance of history into a talking point?

Examine the history of the Suffragette movement for insight into the status of women prior to the vote.

Haven't you ever wondered about the historical underpinnings of some of the customs in the various American forms of wedding ceremony? For example, haven't you ever wondered about the odd custom of "giving away the bride"? Check into terms like "dower", "dowry", "endow" and "bride price". Spend a little time on "marriage contract".

Here are some easy and readily available links to get you started:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chattel_marriage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coverture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marital_power

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dower
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bride_price

Until Women's Suffrage was passed here is the U.S., women could not enter into contracts, in some places could not own real property or go into business, did not have specific rights to her own children, or even give consent to her own marriage without her father's permission regardless of her age.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#13386 Apr 13, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Quite a few scholars would disagree, don't you think?
Here is something you can't avoid.
Anal sex is inherently harmful, unhealthy and demeaning.
It is a violent act against another person. A violation of design.
A clear oxymoron of sexual intimacy at every level of human existence.
Of that, Paul was right.
Right?
Smile.
<quoted text>
I'm simply pointing out the extreme theological position of a dying minority that the bulk of historical Christianity considers heresy. I have no desire to waste time arguing faith with a dishonest faithless heretic.
Your depravity is further exposed by the silly attempt of an obviously studied person to negate the often posted facts of medical science with his personal claim of sphincter health.
It is sad to see the waste of a intelligent mind fatally distorted by denial. It would be interesting to see the paradigm shift if you accepted the fact that homosexuality is a sexual defect.
Smile.
My testimony (not hearsay) carries the same weight as that of those to whom you merely allude (lack of links to testimony is noted). That my testimony is contradictory eliminates an absolutist stance on your part.

Eat it.

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
Why I'll be voting 'No' to same-sex marriage, e... 5 min Not Yet Equal 1,170
Eric Holder: 'Nothing justifies excluding same-... 5 min Sir Andrew 11
Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 17 min Respect71 15,995
Slovenian lawmakers approve same-sex marriage, ... 18 min Logic Question 4 ... 14
Latest gay marriage ruling creates confusion in... 19 min Lamer 28
New York City mayor marches in gay pre-St. Patr... 22 min mjjcpa 13
Alabama Supreme Court halts same-sex marriage 34 min John 35
Is Jeb Bush 'evolving' on same-sex marriage and... 46 min Rick Santpornum 243
Gay marriage (Mar '13) 1 hr GayleWood 57,973
Biggest Gay Lies (May '14) 1 hr Ramses 3,238
More from around the web