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.

Truth

Leesburg, VA

#14439 May 1, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure they were gay. What world do you live in?
No, they were NOT gay.....

Friendship....

Proverbs 18:24

24 One who has unreliable friends soon comes to ruin,
but there is a friend who sticks closer than a brother.
Thinking

Dundee, UK

#14440 May 1, 2013
Another reason not to piss you off!

Wear body armour. I should.
_-Alice-_ wrote:
<quoted text>
You haven't seen my dance with a 28 ounce Estwing yet?
I can juggle 5 of them at once.
Wear a helmet. I do.

_-Alice-_

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#14441 May 1, 2013
Thinking wrote:
Another reason not to piss you off!
Wear body armour. I should.
<quoted text>
You can't piss me off. My anger runs way deep.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#14442 May 1, 2013
Truth wrote:
<quoted text>
Good reply....that doesn't help unless you accept it.....
I took it right from your link.....
Friendship.....doesn't say anything about being gay, having sex, or being married.....
Just friendship......
True, but it does demonstrate that the word under discussion doesn't translate the way it was asserted.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#14443 May 1, 2013
dollarsbill wrote:
<quoted text>
I offer to allow proof that I'm wrong. Still waiting. Biblical illiteracy cannot be hidden. The Bible itself reveals Biblical illiteracy.
You haven't proved that you are right.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#14444 May 1, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Not on this string. Look at the Topix question idiot.
Duh.
Whether it pits church against church, though, has no bearing on whether it should be allowed. In fact, whether it ends up having ANY effect on ANY church ANYWHERE EVER has no bearing on whether it should be allowed.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#14445 May 1, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Every legitimate translation includes condemnation of any sex outside of marriage between a man and woman.
Moreover, sex in marriage is promoted in both the OT and NT. If homosexual sex was accepted, there would certainly be an inclusion promoting it. Instead, the preponderance of all faiths condemn it as unnatural. Oh, along with common sense.
Instead, you have to look stupid trying to explain prohibitions and condemnations of Sodomy.
Want to try again, this has to be embarrassing...
Snicker.
Would a translation that refers to Mary as a young woman rather than as a virgin be a "legitimate" translation?

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#14446 May 1, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Whether it pits church against church, though, has no bearing on whether it should be allowed. In fact, whether it ends up having ANY effect on ANY church ANYWHERE EVER has no bearing on whether it should be allowed.
You keep proving you really are an idiot.

The freedom you are abusing was birthed in Churches. Doing something to harm the societal group doing more good day in and day out across America should be the concern of every American.

Moreover, the callous desecration of cultural and religious traditions by gays is simply crude and vulgar. For a group demanding acceptance, they sure have a foolish way of pursuing it.

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#14447 May 1, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Would a translation that refers to Mary as a young woman rather than as a virgin be a "legitimate" translation?
No. The word used referred to young women who were virgins. Moreover, other passages support the full understanding.

In the case of homosexuality, all passages indicated have been historically understood as such. There are no passages that specifically contradict that understanding. Moreover, sexual morality is consistent, regardless of orientation.

Smile.

“No Allah: know peace”

Since: Jun 07

A sacred grove in Tujunga, CA

#14449 May 1, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
No stuffed donut this morning fat boy.
Your supposed Sodomy between David and Jonathan occurred before your supposed marriage ceremony. Adultery.
Moreover, where does it say anyone can have multiple wives, or women cannot have multiple husbands?
If you weren't a depraved idiot, you'd be embarrassed. And afraid...
Snicker.
Oh, too bad you have not yet learned to read for comprehension. Jewish tradition says that having sex IS a form of marriage ceremony, as I have pointed out repeatedly. And even if that were not the case, they had already exchanged vows (traditional marriage form #2) and exchanged gifts (traditional marriage form #3). I am not going to post three whole chapters, you must read for your self - do TRY to understand what you read this time.

1 Samuel 18:3 Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul.
18:4 And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle.

<Various things happen.>

1 Samuel 20:4 Then said Jonathan unto David, Whatsoever thy soul desireth, I will even do it for thee.

<Various things happen.>

1 Samuel20:41 And as soon as the lad was gone, David arose out of a place toward the south, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himself three times: and they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded.

And FINALLY, after all of that, we come to the first time it is mentioned that they have sex. Was it actually the first time? There is no way to know if this was actually the first time. On the other hand, it does look like this was the last time that the tragic lovers were able to be together as politics forced them apart.

As far as multiple wives, I find it sad that you would attempt to pretend that the Bible says ANYTHING, when you are so profoundly ignorant of what it says...

1 Samuel 25:42 And Abigail hasted, and arose and rode upon an ass, with five damsels of hers that went after her; and she went after the messengers of David, and became his wife.
25:43 David also took Ahinoam of Jezreel; and they were also both of them his wives.
25:44 But Saul had given Michal his daughter, David's wife, to Phalti the son of Laish, which was of Gallim.

For just one example. Of course, thins only mentions three of David's wives...

There IS a Commandment that mentions multiple wives as well:

Deuteronomy 21:15 If a man have two wives...
<It deals with inheritance...>

As far as a woman having multiple husbands, I have to admit that I do not know of a verse that specifically prohibits OR permits the situation. However, women WERE considered a man's property even if the Law did not spell out such a relationship.

“No Allah: know peace”

Since: Jun 07

A sacred grove in Tujunga, CA

#14450 May 1, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Every legitimate translation includes condemnation of any sex outside of marriage between a man and woman.
Moreover, sex in marriage is promoted in both the OT and NT. If homosexual sex was accepted, there would certainly be an inclusion promoting it. Instead, the preponderance of all faiths condemn it as unnatural. Oh, along with common sense.
Instead, you have to look stupid trying to explain prohibitions and condemnations of Sodomy.
Want to try again, this has to be embarrassing...
Snicker.
Stop looking in the mirror when you post.

Then as now, homosexuality would have been a minority. Moreover, back then there was a far greater push to marry a woman and begat heirs. I would presume that every gay male that could manage, would force himself to marry a woman and have children. However, I have no direct evidence for that.

There is good evidence that the word translated as "eunuch" <cariyc> did not mean "castrated male", that instead it referred to those men that never had sex with women. Hmmm... In fact, given the direct contradiction be tween Deuteronomy and Isaiah, cariyc could not possibly have meant "castrated male:

Isaiah 56:4 For thus saith the LORD unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant;
56:5 Even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off.

Deuteronomy 23:1 He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD.

So, castrated males are forbidden entry into the congregation, yet "eunuchs" are welcomed IF they obey all of the Laws and keep the sabbaths. Think about the implications of that...

All in all, there is no reason to believe that there MUST be some sort of statement of inclusion for something that would have been a very small minority.

“No Allah: know peace”

Since: Jun 07

A sacred grove in Tujunga, CA

#14451 May 1, 2013
Jesus did nothing for which I need to thank him.
Truth wrote:
<quoted text>
Might come back to bite you...
No, it won't. False gods have no power to do evil.

“No Allah: know peace”

Since: Jun 07

A sacred grove in Tujunga, CA

#14452 May 1, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You keep proving you really are an idiot.
The freedom you are abusing was birthed in Churches. Doing something to harm the societal group doing more good day in and day out across America should be the concern of every American.
Moreover, the callous desecration of cultural and religious traditions by gays is simply crude and vulgar. For a group demanding acceptance, they sure have a foolish way of pursuing it.
Smile.
But allowing people to get married STRENGTHENS society by promoting stability.

“No Allah: know peace”

Since: Jun 07

A sacred grove in Tujunga, CA

#14453 May 1, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
No. The word used referred to young women who were virgins. Moreover, other passages support the full understanding.
In the case of homosexuality, all passages indicated have been historically understood as such. There are no passages that specifically contradict that understanding. Moreover, sexual morality is consistent, regardless of orientation.
Smile.
While Matt and Luke use a Greek word that does men "virgin", the original verse that they stole for their myths was in Isaiah, and the word he used was "almah" and that means "young woman" with no implications regarding virginity or even marital status. Moreover, Isiah used the specific term ha'almah, meaning that he was referring to a SPECIFIC young woman, one that would have been known or present when he gave that prophecy to King Ahaz. "Hey, king, to prove that you will save your crown, THAT GIRL is going to have a kid who will be a boy."

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#14454 May 1, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
No stuffed donut this morning fat boy.
Your supposed Sodomy between David and Jonathan occurred before your supposed marriage ceremony. Adultery.
Moreover, where does it say anyone can have multiple wives, or women cannot have multiple husbands?
If you weren't a depraved idiot, you'd be embarrassed. And afraid...
Snicker.
Liam R wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, too bad you have not yet learned to read for comprehension. Jewish tradition says that having sex IS a form of marriage ceremony, as I have pointed out repeatedly. And even if that were not the case, they had already exchanged vows (traditional marriage form #2) and exchanged gifts (traditional marriage form #3). I am not going to post three whole chapters, you must read for your self - do TRY to understand what you read this time.
1 Samuel 18:3 Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul.
18:4 And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle.
<Various things happen.>
1 Samuel 20:4 Then said Jonathan unto David, Whatsoever thy soul desireth, I will even do it for thee.
<Various things happen.>
1 Samuel20:41 And as soon as the lad was gone, David arose out of a place toward the south, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himself three times: and they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded.
And FINALLY, after all of that, we come to the first time it is mentioned that they have sex. Was it actually the first time? There is no way to know if this was actually the first time. On the other hand, it does look like this was the last time that the tragic lovers were able to be together as politics forced them apart.
As far as multiple wives, I find it sad that you would attempt to pretend that the Bible says ANYTHING, when you are so profoundly ignorant of what it says...
1 Samuel 25:42 And Abigail hasted, and arose and rode upon an ass, with five damsels of hers that went after her; and she went after the messengers of David, and became his wife.
25:43 David also took Ahinoam of Jezreel; and they were also both of them his wives.
25:44 But Saul had given Michal his daughter, David's wife, to Phalti the son of Laish, which was of Gallim.
For just one example. Of course, thins only mentions three of David's wives...
There IS a Commandment that mentions multiple wives as well:
Deuteronomy 21:15 If a man have two wives...
<It deals with inheritance...>
As far as a woman having multiple husbands, I have to admit that I do not know of a verse that specifically prohibits OR permits the situation. However, women WERE considered a man's property even if the Law did not spell out such a relationship.
I comprehended your BS just fine.

Having 'sex' is not a form of marriage ceremony in Judaism.

Vows and gifts are part of many relationships and ceremonies, not just in Judaism either.

The word exceeded is 'gadal'. It is used numerous times in Scripture. It does not refer to sex. Look it up.

Context is the first and basic element of exegesis. Every one of your selected passages violate the context they are set in.

David and Bethsheba were judged as adulterers because they were married to other people. The same would have been true of David and Jonathan.

You admitted you played this game to annoy others. I confronted you to expose a depraved idiot. Damn, that has to be embarrassing! Perhaps you might use your 'intelligence' for better things???

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#14455 May 1, 2013
Liam R wrote:
<quoted text>
Stop looking in the mirror when you post.
Then as now, homosexuality would have been a minority. Moreover, back then there was a far greater push to marry a woman and begat heirs. I would presume that every gay male that could manage, would force himself to marry a woman and have children. However, I have no direct evidence for that.
There is good evidence that the word translated as "eunuch" <cariyc> did not mean "castrated male", that instead it referred to those men that never had sex with women. Hmmm... In fact, given the direct contradiction be tween Deuteronomy and Isaiah, cariyc could not possibly have meant "castrated male:
Isaiah 56:4 For thus saith the LORD unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant;
56:5 Even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off.
Deuteronomy 23:1 He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD.
So, castrated males are forbidden entry into the congregation, yet "eunuchs" are welcomed IF they obey all of the Laws and keep the sabbaths. Think about the implications of that...
All in all, there is no reason to believe that there MUST be some sort of statement of inclusion for something that would have been a very small minority.
You are an idiot sadomasochist. You keep begging me to expose your stupidity...

There were no homosexual cracks for gay sex to fall through. It was specifically addressed. The behavior was exposed and judged more than once.

I agree that eunuch does not always mean castration. In fact, I think Jesus referred to that distinction in Matthew 19 when he said the only option to marriage between a man and woman was being a eunuch.

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#14456 May 1, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You keep proving you really are an idiot.
The freedom you are abusing was birthed in Churches. Doing something to harm the societal group doing more good day in and day out across America should be the concern of every American.
Moreover, the callous desecration of cultural and religious traditions by gays is simply crude and vulgar. For a group demanding acceptance, they sure have a foolish way of pursuing it.
Smile.
Liam R wrote:
<quoted text>
But allowing people to get married STRENGTHENS society by promoting stability.
Not sure how your claim relates to my post, but rationality has never been your strong suite...
Committed people strengthen and enhance all relationships, including marriage. If you are not committed, marriage is not going to fix that.
Smile.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#14457 May 1, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You keep proving you really are an idiot.
The freedom you are abusing was birthed in Churches. Doing something to harm the societal group doing more good day in and day out across America should be the concern of every American.
Moreover, the callous desecration of cultural and religious traditions by gays is simply crude and vulgar. For a group demanding acceptance, they sure have a foolish way of pursuing it.
Smile.
So, you're AGAINST inter-racial marriage. Thanks for clearing that up.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#14458 May 1, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
No. The word used referred to young women who were virgins. Moreover, other passages support the full understanding.
In the case of homosexuality, all passages indicated have been historically understood as such. There are no passages that specifically contradict that understanding. Moreover, sexual morality is consistent, regardless of orientation.
Smile.
So, you don't know anything about the Bible. As though we needed confirmation.

Smirk.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#14459 May 1, 2013
Liam R wrote:
<quoted text>
Stop looking in the mirror when you post.
Then as now, homosexuality would have been a minority. Moreover, back then there was a far greater push to marry a woman and begat heirs. I would presume that every gay male that could manage, would force himself to marry a woman and have children. However, I have no direct evidence for that.
There is good evidence that the word translated as "eunuch" <cariyc> did not mean "castrated male", that instead it referred to those men that never had sex with women. Hmmm... In fact, given the direct contradiction be tween Deuteronomy and Isaiah, cariyc could not possibly have meant "castrated male:
Isaiah 56:4 For thus saith the LORD unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant;
56:5 Even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off.
Deuteronomy 23:1 He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD.
So, castrated males are forbidden entry into the congregation, yet "eunuchs" are welcomed IF they obey all of the Laws and keep the sabbaths. Think about the implications of that...
All in all, there is no reason to believe that there MUST be some sort of statement of inclusion for something that would have been a very small minority.
I particularly love Isaiah. It so consistently contradicts the Mosaic/Levitical/Deuteronomic codes when it comes to certain particulars, ALWAYS refocusing onto compassion.

Yeshua taught from the prophets, not the juridical codes.

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 Roy Moore accuser says she was not paid to tell... 43 min Bill Clinton 27
BIG BOSS MAN Thanksgiving Party 46 min HUGE HORNY HORATIO 4
News Kim Davis Denied This Gay Man A Marriage Licens... 54 min RICH SLAVE 10
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 1 hr barry 14,179
The Spectrum Cafe (Dec '07) 2 hr Juliette 26,521
News Ten Commandments judge faces runoff in Alabama ... 2 hr Lawrence Wolf 204
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 2 hr cpeter1313 57,966
Roy Moore.....Just Another Hypocrite 3 hr Say what 110
News This Thanksgiving, I'm thankful for being born gay 4 hr RICH SLAVE 28
More from around the web