Will Gay Marriage Pit Church Against Church?

[NorCal Native]

No Surprise wrote:

He claims there is proof Young planned and carried out a massacre.

What do you consider proof? Maybe this:
http://1857massacre.com/

or this:
http://mountainmeadowsmassacre.com/

or maybe this one:
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/660196272/...

It appears this massacre happened, but different accounts seem to suggest that Brigham Young either was a part of it or the Church was, which I believe he founded.......so.....what proof do you have that states something different?

Either way, it's irrelevant to me.....but I find it interesting that you call him a liar, yet don't provide any evidence to support why!!!

[NorCal Native]

No Surprise wrote:

Females are becoming more masculine and males are becoming more feminine. And our societies are making those subtle changes. Is it a good thing? Is it a bad thing? Or is it part of life's way of evolving the human species into something new, that it hasn't been for thousands of years when men were men and women were women. Only the future will know.

Why does it matter if a man opts to be a stay at home parent? Does this make him less of a man? Why if a woman wants to be a Firefighter does that mean she is trying to be to masculine?

Really, men were men thousands of year ago? Please explain how......I'd be interested to know how......and why should men and women be defined by certain criteria?

Funny thing about gender and defining folks by specific gender related roles........it shouldn't matter.....men can still be men regardless of what their interests are and the same should apply to women......the more we try to force people to be in gender specific roles, the more people say no and break out of narrow boxes!!!

The only thing in this world that is 100% A WOMAN THING.......is carrying, birthing and breast-feeding babies.....everything else is debatable!!!!

[NorCal Native]

No Surprise wrote:

<quoted text>
I agree with most of what you said.
But concerning gender being irrelevant, that's some careful trading. Going to the basics of life, life set forth a male and female to procreate (and hopefully) and remain together to raise that off spring as it's done by some other mammals till the off spring is old enough to leave the nest.
We humans have changed that purpose set forth by life. We devalue those opposite sex relationships and are substituting them with other forms of relationships to raise and nurture off spring and we have decided that what we do is well and fine.
The future will prove how well and fine what we're doing is or isn't.

I don't believe anyone is devaluing opposite-sex relationships......but people are devaluing the families of Same-Sex Couples and trying to make it seem that Gays and Lesbians are somehow not valued Citizens of this Country..........the future is going to be just fine, hopefully we will learn that just because some can have babies, doesn't mean they should.......like that wonderful couple earlier that I posted about!!!

[snyper]

Jeff wrote:

<quoted text>
Its just starting. As society evolves over the decades and centuries anything can happen.

You'll be long dead. It will be THEIR world to do with as they wish.

[snyper]

No Surprise wrote:

<quoted text>
I agree with most of what you said.
But concerning gender being irrelevant, that's some careful trading. Going to the basics of life, life set forth a male and female to procreate (and hopefully) and remain together to raise that off spring as it's done by some other mammals till the off spring is old enough to leave the nest.
We humans have changed that purpose set forth by life. We devalue those opposite sex relationships and are substituting them with other forms of relationships to raise and nurture off spring and we have decided that what we do is well and fine.
The future will prove how well and fine what we're doing is or isn't.

In this and other posts, you seem to conflate gender with gender roles. One is plumbing, the other social conditioning; i.e. transitory and mutable.

[tickedoffchic]

Romans Road wrote:

<quoted text>
You unbelievers have NO right to talk about spelling or grammar errors.
"a tipickle unbeelevee postt is liek thiss herre, u fundiies r dum but we unbeeleveers arr smert"

If you "believers" weren't so illiterate, we wouldn't have to talk about it. You people show your ignorance at every turn. LOL!

[janeebee]

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
Is it inside the woman's body, living off of her system? If it is, it should be her choice, zygote, fetus, human, baby...

IMO, a fetus is not a body part.
A womb is part of a woman's body.
But the human being developing in a womb is NOT.

Furthermore, body parts are NOT canceled, terminated, or aborted!
They're excized, amputated, cut out, disarticulated...etc.

Aside from which, every single one of us was once a fetus.
We wouldn't be here if WE'D been aborted.

Surely we all agree on that much!

[Cookie_Parker]

NorCal Native wrote:

<quoted text>
Why does it matter if a man opts to be a stay at home parent? Does this make him less of a man? Why if a woman wants to be a Firefighter does that mean she is trying to be to masculine?
Really, men were men thousands of year ago? Please explain how......I'd be interested to know how......and why should men and women be defined by certain criteria?
Funny thing about gender and defining folks by specific gender related roles........it shouldn't matter.....men can still be men regardless of what their interests are and the same should apply to women......the more we try to force people to be in gender specific roles, the more people say no and break out of narrow boxes!!!
The only thing in this world that is 100% A WOMAN THING.......is carrying, birthing and breast-feeding babies.....everything else is debatable!!!!

Well put. Seems those defining what is manly are those who do very little and make their wives do it all.

[snyper]

janeebee wrote:

<quoted text>
IMO, a fetus is not a body part.
A womb is part of a woman's body.
But the human being developing in a womb is NOT.
Furthermore, body parts are NOT canceled, terminated, or aborted!
They're excized, amputated, cut out, disarticulated...etc.
Aside from which, every single one of us was once a fetus.
We wouldn't be here if WE'D been aborted.
Surely we all agree on that much!

Don't confuse a word for the thing.

The body produces the egg. Every part of the egg comes from the body. It is part of the body, just like very other cell the body produces. Like a retrovirus, it cannot replicate itself because it has only half the genetic material necessary to do so. Once the "fertilizing" chain reaction starts replication, the cells remain the woman's body genetically. Still, absolutely everything it uses to grow, replicate and differentiate comes from the woman's body. Except of 50% of the DNA blueprint, it's ALL the woman's body.

Biochemically, there is little reason why parthenogenesis is not possible.

btw: Do you like your chicken hard boiled, poached, sunny, over easy or scrambled?

[janeebee]

Jeff wrote:

<quoted text>
I agree. I asked if it would be a good thing if 99% of heterosexual married couples did not have babies.
Doesn't society have vested interest in having heterosexual couples to have babies?
So why should we support relationships that cannot procreate?

Jeff: " Doesn't society have vested interest in having heterosexual couples to have babies?"

H*LL NO.
Traditional marriage doesn't benefit society because heterosexuals procreate, but because marriage makes heterosexuals legally responsible for the children they produce.
In ancient times, hetero promiscuity was rampant and unchecked. People had sex at the drop of a hat. Marriage was introduced BECAUSE heteroswent around f*cking like bunnies with reckless abandon.
Procreation was the PROBLEM.
Marriage was the solution: sex with only ONE partner lowers the overall birth rate significantly.
And by the way, traditional marriage is NOT to Christians' credit, should you be laboring under the assumption it is.
Marriage wasn't meant to gloriify procreaters, but to constrain them within the confines of a two-person union.

[Quest]

GodSmacked wrote:

<quoted text>
Hello Quest.

Howdy

[Quest]

Romans Road wrote:

<quoted text>
Satan's churches will fall away but the true Bible believing, bible preaching churches will be united.

Interesting view, but the problems start when you start thinking that anyone who does not agree with your personal interpretations of this or that scripture are automatically of "Satan's Church".

There are very very few absolutes required to be a Christian, and those were discussed by Jesus Himself.

Much of the rest is subject to learning, conjecture, and personal opinion.

[NorCal Native]

Cookie_Parker wrote:

<quoted text>
Well put. Seems those defining what is manly are those who do very little and make their wives do it all.

I happen to agree with snyper......they are confusing the physical plumbing with societal roles and they're not the same thing.......a man is a man because of his plumbing, not because of the job he holds in society.

The same is true for a woman.......and yet these fundies confuse physical traits with employment attributes!!!

[Tony C]

Romans Road wrote:

<quoted text>
This is a discussion forum. The thread title is "Will Gay Marriage Pit Church Against Church?"........what do you want me to post about,'butterflies and flowers'?
The Holy Bible is crystal clear that marriage is between a MAN and a WOMAN.....plus homosexuality is a sin......plus any sex outside of marriage is a sin......

There is no 100% accurately translated bible on earth.

Next.

[LowellGuy]

Romans Road wrote:

<quoted text>
I read through it multiple times a year. After every entire reading, my faith increases more and more. I start in Genesis 1:1 go through to Rev 22:21 and then back to Genesis 1:1 over and over.......actually it's continual. Every day I have a dedicated bible reading time.

Reading != comprehending

[LowellGuy]

Romans Road wrote:

<quoted text>
No, I believe what the bible teaches and that is that the earth is a sphere suspended in space.
How many times are going to repeat the same nonsense drivel?

Oh, right. The old "spheres are circles" bit. They ain't.

[Tony C]

Romans Road wrote:

<quoted text>
I read through it multiple times a year. After every entire reading, my faith increases more and more. I start in Genesis 1:1 go through to Rev 22:21 and then back to Genesis 1:1 over and over.......actually it's continual. Every day I have a dedicated bible reading time.

I suggest more prayer since you're obviously not getting it.

[Tony C]

Romans Road wrote:

<quoted text>
Satan's churches will fall away but the true Bible believing, bible preaching churches will be united.

Actually the majority are and will continue to be "the false church" where people like you convince each other that loving thy neighbor means denying legal status to their marriages in a country where everyone is supposed to be free and equal - among other blasphemous atrocities.

[Tony C]

Romans Road wrote:

<quoted text>
Job 26:7- He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.
Isaiah 40:21-22
21 Have ye not known? have ye not heard? hath it not been told you from the beginning? have ye not understood from the foundations of the earth?
22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:
Proverbs 8:27- When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth:
----------
Circle, compass = Strong's H2329 - chuwg

Speaking of stretcheth...

[janeebee]

snyper wrote:

<quoted text>
Don't confuse a word for the thing.
The body produces the egg. Every part of the egg comes from the body. It is part of the body, just like very other cell the body produces. Like a retrovirus, it cannot replicate itself because it has only half the genetic material necessary to do so. Once the "fertilizing" chain reaction starts replication, the cells remain the woman's body genetically. Still, absolutely everything it uses to grow, replicate and differentiate comes from the woman's body. Except of 50% of the DNA blueprint, it's ALL the woman's body.
Biochemically, there is little reason why parthenogenesis is not possible.
btw: Do you like your chicken hard boiled, poached, sunny, over easy or scrambled?

snyper: "Don't confuse a word for the thing."

You seem to be confusing what it is with what it isn't.
The egg is part of a womans body.
Sperm is part of a man's body.
When the egg in in the body of human no. 1, the woman, is fertilized by sperm from the body of human no. 2,, the. Man, a THIRD human is concieved.

A plant needs sunlight to grow. It is not a part of the sun.
A fetus needs nourishment to develop. It is not a part of the nourishing body's.

All of OUR own lives began at our conception - we were all once fetuses ourselves - how can the unborn NOT matter?