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
15,141 - 15,160 of 16,105 Comments Last updated Aug 28, 2013

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16999
Jun 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
You said you have no problem with same-sex couples establishing legitimate rights, but you don't want it called marriage. It sounds like you support them having all the same rights as married couples, but without the title. Is that correct? If so, how is that not exactly "separate, but equal?"
ooh, you busted his balls. and clitty.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17001
Jun 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I never said sodomy should prevent people from marrying. I said it is abuse.
<quoted text>
It certainly is relevant in pointing out a distinction at the most intimate level of relationship.
Marriage is a natural HEALTHY physical union.
Ss sex is inherently harmful, unhealthy and demeaning abuse. Yet, that is the closest ss couples can get to imitating intimacy in marriage.
Your idea that we should drop the most visible, physical union in comparing the relationships is understandable in light of the above facts...
But, how people choose to have sex (or if they choose to have sex at all) is not a factor in allowing people to marry, as it would require you to ban heterosexual couples from marrying if they engage in anal sex (notice you never mention cunnilingus...it's only ever THE GAY BUTT SEX), and you've made it clear that anal sex is not in any way related to whether people should be allowed to marry. So, like I said, it's entirely irrelevant, and you should drop it from your argument. Repeating irrelevant nonsense doesn't somehow make it relevant.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17002
Jun 16, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Never have gotten that far.
Ss couples are not equal to marriage.
<quoted text>
They are not equal for numerous reasons mentioned many times.
Therefore, they do not deserve the same rights as marriage.
It really is not complicated at all.
Do us a favor and tell us which rights you think same-sex couples should be entitled to. Make it clear what you think they should and should not be able to do legally, and provide the legally valid justification for withholding such rights.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17003
Jun 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Never have gotten that far.
Ss couples are not equal to marriage.
Correct. SS Couples are Persons and sovereign Equal Citizens.

Marriage is merely a construct of contract law.

"Society"(or the State) and it's constructs exist to serve the individual, not the other way around.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17004
Jun 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I never said sodomy should prevent people from marrying. I said it is abuse.
"Abuse" of whom?

Or do you really mean of a "what"?

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17005
Jun 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I never said sodomy should prevent people from marrying. I said it is abuse.
<quoted text>
It certainly is relevant in pointing out a distinction at the most intimate level of relationship.
Marriage is a natural HEALTHY physical union.
Ss sex is inherently harmful, unhealthy and demeaning abuse. Yet, that is the closest ss couples can get to imitating intimacy in marriage.
Your idea that we should drop the most visible, physical union in comparing the relationships is understandable in light of the above facts...
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
But, how people choose to have sex (or if they choose to have sex at all) is not a factor in allowing people to marry, as it would require you to ban heterosexual couples from marrying if they engage in anal sex (notice you never mention cunnilingus...it's only ever THE GAY BUTT SEX), and you've made it clear that anal sex is not in any way related to whether people should be allowed to marry. So, like I said, it's entirely irrelevant, and you should drop it from your argument. Repeating irrelevant nonsense doesn't somehow make it relevant.
I've never asserted that sex is a factor in allowing people to marry.

I clearly and simply exposed the sexual distinction between ss couples and marriage.

That distinction is clearly a relevant factor in not equating ss couples and marriage.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17006
Jun 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Do us a favor and tell us which rights you think same-sex couples should be entitled to. Make it clear what you think they should and should not be able to do legally, and provide the legally valid justification for withholding such rights.
No.

You do it.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17007
Jun 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I never said sodomy should prevent people from marrying. I said it is abuse.
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
"Abuse" of whom?
Or do you really mean of a "what"?
Dumb question...

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17008
Jun 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Never have gotten that far.
Ss couples are not equal to marriage.
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Correct. SS Couples are Persons and sovereign Equal Citizens.
Marriage is merely a construct of contract law.
"Society"(or the State) and it's constructs exist to serve the individual, not the other way around.
Marriage exists before and apart from contract law.

Constructs do not always exist just for the individual.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17009
Jun 16, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
But it's only a mutually sterile, pointlessly duplicate gendered half of real marriage.
Different. Very different.
Real marriage is sacred. And scientific.
Ss couples are simply pretending. Even a child knows that, because they are NEVER mom and dad, are they.
Again, those are just YOUR views, NOT those of the Law, nor used as the stated rationale for enactments.

"Sacred"?

(I thought you said that you weren't bringing religious views into this dogfight.)

If marriage is "sacred" then, under the Protections guaranteed by Amendment I of the U.S. Constitution, it is something established by religion and the Government has NO business being involved in it in any way; neither pro nor con. No recognition of it's existence at all. No need for definitions, tax deductions, immigration preferences, survivor inheritance benefits, automatic powers of attorney, accommodations, conjugal visitation, on and on and on.

There go over 1100 Federal perks and responsibilities.

(Of course, if rationally and consistently applied, this will also eliminate tax exempt status for churches, Congressional chaplains, oath bibles, national prayer breakfasts, any funding through grants or vouchers or payments to parochial institutions, etc. I'm very OK with that. I doubt that you are.)

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17010
Jun 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I never said sodomy should prevent people from marrying. I said it is abuse.
<quoted text>
Dumb question...
I believe that while denial of sexual relations has, in the past, been grounds for annulment or divorce in some States, sexual activity is not a specific requirement of the Legal Contract. Assumed perhaps, but not required.

All you're saying is that marriage=sexual relations. You can't say it's procreation, because it isn't necessary to that. Come to think of it, marriage isn't necessary to sex, either. Parenting? Not necessary to that either; and no guarantee of better performance in ANY of the above.

Oh! That's right! Marriage is about CONTROL of procreation.

Who holds YOUR studbook?

I'm certainly not willing to place mine into YOUR hands.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17011
Jun 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
But it's only a mutually sterile, pointlessly duplicate gendered half of real marriage.
Different. Very different.
Real marriage is sacred. And scientific.
Ss couples are simply pretending. Even a child knows that, because they are NEVER mom and dad, are they.
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, those are just YOUR views, NOT those of the Law, nor used as the stated rationale for enactments.
"Sacred"?
(I thought you said that you weren't bringing religious views into this dogfight.)
If marriage is "sacred" then, under the Protections guaranteed by Amendment I of the U.S. Constitution, it is something established by religion and the Government has NO business being involved in it in any way; neither pro nor con. No recognition of it's existence at all. No need for definitions, tax deductions, immigration preferences, survivor inheritance benefits, automatic powers of attorney, accommodations, conjugal visitation, on and on and on.
There go over 1100 Federal perks and responsibilities.
(Of course, if rationally and consistently applied, this will also eliminate tax exempt status for churches, Congressional chaplains, oath bibles, national prayer breakfasts, any funding through grants or vouchers or payments to parochial institutions, etc. I'm very OK with that. I doubt that you are.)
'YOUR' views? Seriously.

The denial of the relational reality I accurately stated is as silly as your attempt to frame marriage solely in a legal parameter on a religious forum.

I'm not restrained from viewing the breadth of marriage on this discussion forum. Your attempt to do so only exposes your inability to defend your position if all factors are included. And we certainly are not standing before the SCOTUS.

You are a perfect example of the inability of a homosexual to equate to the full dimension of marriage.

“God Loves Ilks!”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17012
Jun 16, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
But it's only a mutually sterile, pointlessly duplicate gendered half of real marriage.
Different. Very different.
Real marriage is sacred. And scientific.
Ss couples are simply pretending. Even a child knows that, because they are NEVER mom and dad, are they.
Actually, there are several types of marriage spoken of in scripture:

Polygynous Marriage

Probably the most common form of marriage in the bible, it is where a man has more than one wife.

Levirate Marriage

When a woman was widowed without a son, it became the responsibility of the brother-in-law or a close male relative to take her in and impregnate her. If the resulting child was a son, he would be considered the heir of her late husband. See Ruth, and the story of Onan (Gen. 38:6-10).

A man, a woman and her property — a female slave

The famous “handmaiden” sketch, as preformed by Abraham (Gen. 16:1-6) and Jacob (Gen. 30:4-5).

A man, one or more wives, and some concubines

The definition of a concubine varies from culture to culture, but they tended to be live-in mistresses. Concubines were tied to their “husband,” but had a lower status than a wife. Their children were not usually heirs, so they were safe outlets for sex without risking the line of succession. To see how badly a concubine could be treated, see the famous story of the Levite and his concubine (Judges 19:1-30).

A male soldier and a female prisoner of war

Women could be taken as booty from a successful campaign and forced to become wives or concubines. Deuteronomy 21:11-14 describes the process.

A male rapist and his victim

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 describes how an unmarried woman who had been raped must marry her attacker.

A male and female slave

A female slave could be married to a male slave without consent, presumably to produce more slaves.

and of course …
Monogamous, heterosexual marriage
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/unreasonablefait...

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17013
Jun 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
I believe that while denial of sexual relations has, in the past, been grounds for annulment or divorce in some States, sexual activity is not a specific requirement of the Legal Contract. Assumed perhaps, but not required.
All you're saying is that marriage=sexual relations. You can't say it's procreation, because it isn't necessary to that. Come to think of it, marriage isn't necessary to sex, either. Parenting? Not necessary to that either; and no guarantee of better performance in ANY of the above.
Oh! That's right! Marriage is about CONTROL of procreation.
Who holds YOUR studbook?
I'm certainly not willing to place mine into YOUR hands.
I've never asserted that sex is a factor in allowing people to marry.

I clearly and simply exposed the sexual distinction between ss couples and marriage.

That distinction is clearly a relevant factor in not equating ss couples and marriage.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17014
Jun 16, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Nettiebelle wrote:
<quoted text>Actually, there are several types of marriage spoken of in scripture:
Polygynous Marriage
Probably the most common form of marriage in the bible, it is where a man has more than one wife.
Levirate Marriage
When a woman was widowed without a son, it became the responsibility of the brother-in-law or a close male relative to take her in and impregnate her. If the resulting child was a son, he would be considered the heir of her late husband. See Ruth, and the story of Onan (Gen. 38:6-10).
A man, a woman and her property — a female slave
The famous “handmaiden” sketch, as preformed by Abraham (Gen. 16:1-6) and Jacob (Gen. 30:4-5).
A man, one or more wives, and some concubines
The definition of a concubine varies from culture to culture, but they tended to be live-in mistresses. Concubines were tied to their “husband,” but had a lower status than a wife. Their children were not usually heirs, so they were safe outlets for sex without risking the line of succession. To see how badly a concubine could be treated, see the famous story of the Levite and his concubine (Judges 19:1-30).
A male soldier and a female prisoner of war
Women could be taken as booty from a successful campaign and forced to become wives or concubines. Deuteronomy 21:11-14 describes the process.
A male rapist and his victim
Deuteronomy 22:28-29 describes how an unmarried woman who had been raped must marry her attacker.
A male and female slave
A female slave could be married to a male slave without consent, presumably to produce more slaves.
and of course …
Monogamous, heterosexual marriage
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/unreasonablefait...
Thank you. That was very informative.

“God Loves Ilks!”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17015
Jun 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you. That was very informative.
You are welcome.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17016
Jun 16, 2013
 
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I've never asserted that sex is a factor in allowing people to marry.
I clearly and simply exposed the sexual distinction between ss couples and marriage.
That distinction is clearly a relevant factor in not equating ss couples and marriage.
ONLY if Marriage is about sexual congress is it pertinent, but not even then since marriage isn't required for it to occur.

Your "point" regarding Marriage has no basis in Law ... or reality ... merely the reality of your anti-gay bias.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17017
Jun 16, 2013
 
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Never have gotten that far.
Ss couples are not equal to marriage.
<quoted text>
Marriage exists before and apart from contract law.
Constructs do not always exist just for the individual.
Name a construct (a legal fiction) that isn't to serve the individual sovereign Citizen.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17018
Jun 16, 2013
 
snyper wrote:
snyper wrote:
"Abuse" of whom?
Or do you really mean of a "what"?[QUOTE]

[QUOTE who="KiMare"]
KiMare wrote:
I never said sodomy should prevent people from marrying. I said it is abuse.
Dumb question...
No, it is a direct question.

"Abuse " of whom or what?

Answer the question.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17019
Jun 17, 2013
 
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
But it's only a mutually sterile, pointlessly duplicate gendered half of real marriage.
Different. Very different.
Real marriage is sacred. And scientific.
Ss couples are simply pretending. Even a child knows that, because they are NEVER mom and dad, are they.
<quoted text>
'YOUR' views? Seriously.
The denial of the relational reality I accurately stated is as silly as your attempt to frame marriage solely in a legal parameter on a religious forum.
I'm not restrained from viewing the breadth of marriage on this discussion forum. Your attempt to do so only exposes your inability to defend your position if all factors are included. And we certainly are not standing before the SCOTUS.
You are a perfect example of the inability of a homosexual to equate to the full dimension of marriage.
We are discussing CIVIL and LEGAL Marriage, not religious matrimony.

Again, if Marriage is "sacred" then under the Laws of this Nation Government has no business in it. "Sacred" matrimony is the concern of sectarian religious bodies, and effect those who subscribe to those sects, not others.

Legally, by Grandfathering, sectarian religionist matrimony is recognized as satisfying the Legal requirements of the Civil Marriage contract as long as certain very basic forms are observed. This does not mean that sectarian religionist bodies are entitled to dictate terms to Civil Government regarding access to or exclusion from Civil Marriage. On the contrary, Civil Government determines who may act in the position of Official Witness for the State (Officiant) to the public verbal expression of Informed Consent to Marriage Contract by the parties to the Contract. Further, demonstration of satisfaction of the Legal requirements for a Marriage License must be made by the applying Parties to the CIVIL authorities, not any sectarian religious person and, upon such demonstration may Marry pretty much anywhere, and with any eligible Officiant they so choose. It is the Civil Government that authorizes the CIVIL marriage, whether Officiated by a CIVIL authority or a sectarian religionist shaman of some stripe ... NOT the other way around.

"Scientific"?

Apart from Social Scientists (I are one, crosspatch) studying it, how is "marriage" itself "scientific"?

Make it march.

(You really need to learn the difference between your imagined models that help you make your own sense of things, and reality; especially the reality of those perspectives specific to disciplines which are not yours; e.g. Law and the Social Sciences. Incorrectly bandying terms which have definitions specific to those disciplines does not mean you are truly conversant in the concepts specific to those perspectives. From your mouth they play like buzzwords.)

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.

•••