Will Gay Marriage Pit Church Against ...

Will Gay Marriage Pit Church Against Church?

There are 16098 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.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#17004 Jun 16, 2013
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

#17005 Jun 16, 2013
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

#17006 Jun 16, 2013
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

#17007 Jun 16, 2013
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

#17008 Jun 16, 2013
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

#17009 Jun 16, 2013
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

#17010 Jun 16, 2013
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

#17011 Jun 16, 2013
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

#17012 Jun 16, 2013
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

#17013 Jun 16, 2013
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

#17014 Jun 16, 2013
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

#17015 Jun 16, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you. That was very informative.
You are welcome.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#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

#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

#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

#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.)

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#17020 Jun 17, 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.
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
The only 'opinion' in this is yours.

And it denies reality.

Equating a relationship to marriage is required to acquire equal rights. That is simple common sense.

The ridiculous thing, is that to equate ss couples to marriage, you consistently have to exclude the most important elements of marriage.

But here is the bottom line; The law may change. What won't change is the vast distinctions you exclude between marriage and ss couples.

Even you know that, and that is why I annoy your side so deeply.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#17021 Jun 17, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Name a construct (a legal fiction) that isn't to serve the individual sovereign Citizen.
Marriage.

It serves at least two people.

SCOTUS has determined numerous times, it's interest is because it serves society in general.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#17023 Jun 17, 2013
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.
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
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.)
'You' are discussing a narrow aspect of marriage to manipulate the outcome.

I annoy you because I bring up things you would try to restrict in a court room.'Sorry', this is not a court room.

In this setting, being sensitive to cultural and religious constricts is a sign of civilization.

As to scientific, I have repeatedly pointed out that AT IT'S MOST BASIC ESSENCE, marriage is cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior. Ss couples are a defective failure of evolutionary mating behavior. That is basic evolutionary science, and you know it.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#17024 Jun 17, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:....Ss couples are simply pretending. Even a child knows that, because they are NEVER mom and dad, are they...
Ask them ...



http://www.youtube.com/watch...

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 What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 49 min Jasonville 6,173
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 1 hr Wondering 49,494
News Doritos makes rainbow chips in support of gay r... (Sep '15) 3 hr neighbor 1,678
News Two men caned 83 times at Indonesian mosque for... 4 hr Rose_NoHo 34
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 7 hr Lilly 25,678
Jade's Turkey Lodge 7 hr Sharp shooter 2
News Ruling: Refusal to print gay pride shirts not d... 7 hr TomInElPaso 266
More from around the web