Will Gay Marriage Pit Church Against Church?

There are 16103 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

#12639 Apr 7, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Stop treating the Constitution from a Biblicist perspective.
Jesus Christ legislated and announced to the world a Great Constitution, the New Testament.

1 Corinthians 14:37

37 If anyone thinks they are a prophet or otherwise gifted by the Spirit, let them acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#12640 Apr 7, 2013
Truth wrote:
Proverbs 18:14
14 The human spirit can endure in sickness,
but a crushed spirit who can bear?
"Proverbs" is not prophetic utterence.

http://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/12400-...
Truth

Leesburg, VA

#12641 Apr 7, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Stop treating the Constitution from a Biblicist perspective.
If God has declared that the man of God is thoroughly equipped for every good work through the Scriptures, who has the right to say that the man of God is NOT thoroughly equipped for every good work through the Scriptures?
Truth

Leesburg, VA

#12642 Apr 7, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Stop treating the Constitution from a Biblicist perspective.
Unlike the Constitution adopted by our forefathers, the New Testament is NOT subject to amendment.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#12643 Apr 7, 2013
Truth wrote:
<quoted text>
If God has declared that the man of God is thoroughly equipped for every good work through the Scriptures, who has the right to say that the man of God is NOT thoroughly equipped for every good work through the Scriptures?
That's just Saul and his followers, not "God".
Truth

Leesburg, VA

#12644 Apr 7, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
"Proverbs" is not prophetic utterence.
http://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/12400-...
1 Thessalonians 5:20-22

20 do not despise prophetic utterances.

21 But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good;

22 abstain from every form of evil.

If we are going to be ready when the Lord comes again, we cannot hold "contempt" for what the word tells us.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#12645 Apr 7, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>So Jarboy, why do you exist?

Why does it matter if anyone has 'rights'?

What moral code dictates any such thing?

Lets see you think without copy and pasting.

Smile.
Jaredb8 wrote:
<quoted text>
I live in the USA. In this country we have rights so I are you are too dumb to realize this and if you don't like it you are welcome to move someplace where you have no rights and everyone thinks for you and tells you what to do.
Moral code. How about decency and fairness. Try not to hold others back because you can't keep up and will fall behind without doing so.
You are a product of nature (your words). Survival of the fittest. You live, you die, you are no more.

There is no moral code. There are no inherent rights. The only thing that matters is to survive. Whatever you can get away with is okay. You can steal, murder, lie, deprive others of their supposed rights if it enhances your ability to survive. If life gets too difficult, the sensible thing to do is end it rather than suffer.

Common sense would also dictate that if someone in a 'pack' is injured, defective or unprofitable, they should be eliminated.

That Jarboy is the logical conclusion of your world view.

And you mock religion?

Smirk.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#12646 Apr 7, 2013
Jaredb8 wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you equate marriage to reproduction. What do you think of those couples that use condoms and birth control pills??????????
I don't, nature does;

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

ss couples are a defective, contradictive failure.

Couples delaying or not having children have never been a problem before. Why now, just so an imposter desolate relationship can impose themselves marriage?

Meanwhile, you have no answer for my analogy;

The differences between marriage with/without kids and gay couples;
An apple tree bearing fruit.
An apple tree not bearing fruit for some reason.
A walnut tree who never bears any fruit wanting to be an apple tree.
A walnut tree hanging apples on it's branches pretending to be an apple tree.

Even funnier?

The claim that if the government doesn't 'require' apple trees to bear fruit, then it is discrimination not to call walnut trees apple trees too!

Still, no logical response...

Smirk.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#12647 Apr 7, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Constraint of sovereign Free adults by what authority?
By the same authority that all societies constrain behavior.

Smile.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#12648 Apr 7, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Fallacies:
Argumentun ad baculum
Appeal to authority
Still using profane sources, eh?
Should these posters go away? They don't have anything other than fallacies to support their worthless opinions. LMAO

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#12649 Apr 7, 2013
The differences between marriage with/without kids and gay couples;
An apple tree bearing fruit.
An apple tree not bearing fruit for some reason.
A walnut tree who never bears any fruit wanting to be an apple tree.
A walnut tree hanging apples on it's branches pretending to be an apple tree.

Even funnier?

The claim that if the government doesn't 'require' apple trees to bear fruit, then it is discrimination not to call walnut trees apple trees too!

Still, no logical response...

Smirk.
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
This was silly the first time you posted it, and it's not getting sweeter with age.
Humans are not trees.
Not all trees bear fruit.
Not all humans bear children.
Many people raise children.
Some of them are gay.
Marriage benefits gay and straight couples equally.
Strong and secure families benefit society.
Some secure families plant trees in their yards.
Some of those trees bear fruit.
Whew, that's some gay twirl!

You are smart enough to know that's an analogy.

Kind of insulting to yourself to play dumb like that.

Everyone knows it is because you have no logical retort.

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

Ss couples are a serious defective failure of the primary purpose of mating behavior. Literally 'unmarriage'.

The best place for a child, by far, is with their biological parents. The children and their parents prefer that too. Any default situation is an immediate, drastic negative alternative with lesbian couples rating last, after single parents. That whole 'fruit of my loins' thing really explains it all.

Smile.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#12650 Apr 7, 2013
Truth wrote:
<quoted text>
1 Thessalonians 5:20-22
20 do not despise prophetic utterances.
21 But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good;
22 abstain from every form of evil.
If we are going to be ready when the Lord comes again, we cannot hold "contempt" for what the word tells us.
Circular argument.

Proves nothing but wanton ignorance.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#12651 Apr 7, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
By the same authority that all societies constrain behavior.
Smile.
Painting with a broad brush. All societies? Really?

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#12652 Apr 7, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
You've used fallacies called "Appeal to Authority" and "Appeal to Tradition".
Also, those factors are fallacious in the argument because the are "non-sequitur".
The Saturn V is a demonstration that things change.
Both the Chinese and the Vikings had magnetism at the same time.
The Chinese used magnetic spoons to try to predict the future.
The Vikings used magnetic needles for navigation.
Descendants of the Vikings have conquered a world, put men on the Moon, and have had to teach the Chinese what computers are, and what logic is good for.
Tradition is a very bad card to play.
Didn't play tradition either.

Tradition is a cultural specific argument.

Marriage and religion are cross cultural.

Calling ss couples married is not. It isn't even a tradition.

Smirk.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#12653 Apr 7, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Contemporary Governmental interest in Civil Marriage is not based upon procreation, no matter how much you may wish that it was.
You've been told this before, with links to prove that this is not the case.
Show some integrity and drop it.
You lie.

Again.

"We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race."- Skinner v Oklahoma

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival."- Loving v Virginia

"Our Court has not recognized a fundamental right to marry that departs in any respect from the right defined by the US Supreme Court in cases like Skinner which acknowledged that marriage is "fundamental to the very existence and survival of the [human] race" because it is the primary institution supporting procreation and child-rearing (316 US at 541; see also Zablocki, 434 US 374; Griswold, 381 US 479). The binary nature of marriage—its inclusion of one woman and one man—reflects the biological fact that human procreation cannot be accomplished without the genetic contribution of both a male and a female. Marriage creates a supportive environment for procreation to occur and the resulting offspring to be nurtured. Although plaintiffs suggest that the connection between procreation and marriage has become anachronistic because of scientific advances in assisted reproduction technology, the fact remains that the vast majority of children are conceived naturally through sexual contact between a woman and a man."- Hernandez v Robels

"It is an institution in the maintenance of which in its purity the public is deeply interested, for it is the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress. "- Maynard v Hill

Snicker.

Since: Mar 12

Milwaukee

#12655 Apr 7, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>So Jarboy, why do you exist?

Why does it matter if anyone has 'rights'?

What moral code dictates any such thing?

Lets see you think without copy and pasting.

Smile.

You are a product of nature (your words). Survival of the fittest. You live, you die, you are no more.

There is no moral code. There are no inherent rights. The only thing that matters is to survive. Whatever you can get away with is okay. You can steal, murder, lie, deprive others of their supposed rights if it enhances your ability to survive. If life gets too difficult, the sensible thing to do is end it rather than suffer.

Common sense would also dictate that if someone in a 'pack' is injured, defective or unprofitable, they should be eliminated.

That Jarboy is the logical conclusion of your world view.

And you mock religion?

Smirk.
Not at all my view but if you think so

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#12656 Apr 7, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You lie.
Again.
"We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race."- Skinner v Oklahoma
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival."- Loving v Virginia
"Our Court has not recognized a fundamental right to marry that departs in any respect from the right defined by the US Supreme Court in cases like Skinner which acknowledged that marriage is "fundamental to the very existence and survival of the [human] race" because it is the primary institution supporting procreation and child-rearing (316 US at 541; see also Zablocki, 434 US 374; Griswold, 381 US 479). The binary nature of marriage—its inclusion of one woman and one man—reflects the biological fact that human procreation cannot be accomplished without the genetic contribution of both a male and a female. Marriage creates a supportive environment for procreation to occur and the resulting offspring to be nurtured. Although plaintiffs suggest that the connection between procreation and marriage has become anachronistic because of scientific advances in assisted reproduction technology, the fact remains that the vast majority of children are conceived naturally through sexual contact between a woman and a man."- Hernandez v Robels
"It is an institution in the maintenance of which in its purity the public is deeply interested, for it is the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress. "- Maynard v Hill
Snicker.
You are making an intellectually dishonest argument.

Skinner was a 40s case based upon mandatory sterilization. The Plaintiff was being denied the fundamental right to procreate.

Loving used the argument from Skinner to show that marriage was a fundamental right and that the defendants were being denied the fundamental right to marriage and procreation.

Finally were are talking about marriage and families in Maynard. Same sex couples do indeed have families. There is no valid reason to promote opposite sex families at the expense of same-sex families. What's more, the Slaughterhouse cases showed that a compelling state interest is required for the denial of anyone's fundamental rights.

The bottom line is you have cherry-picked the cases to present an intellectually dishonest argument which will soon be proven by the courts to be as I say, intellectually dishonest.

Since: Mar 12

Milwaukee

#12657 Apr 7, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>I don't, nature does;

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

ss couples are a defective, contradictive failure.

Couples delaying or not having children have never been a problem before. Why now, just so an imposter desolate relationship can impose themselves marriage?

Meanwhile, you have no answer for my analogy;

The differences between marriage with/without kids and gay couples;
An apple tree bearing fruit.
An apple tree not bearing fruit for some reason.
A walnut tree who never bears any fruit wanting to be an apple tree.
A walnut tree hanging apples on it's branches pretending to be an apple tree.

Even funnier?

The claim that if the government doesn't 'require' apple trees to bear fruit, then it is discrimination not to call walnut trees apple trees too!

Still, no logical response...

Smirk.
Copy and paste copy and paste!!!
How about your own thoughts??

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#12658 Apr 7, 2013
One more thing. Prior to Loving v. Virginia, there were those who argued that the state had an interest in racial purity. The court found that no such interest existed.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#12659 Apr 7, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
And he rebuts with a profane source. lol
Proverbs 16:4 (NKJV)
4 The LORD has made all for Himself, Yes, even the wicked for the day of doom.

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.

Christian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Republic of Ireland votes for equal marriage 16 min Flaming truth 84
apokalypsis (May '09) 37 min RELIGION ROBBER L... 1,126
Sodom and Gomorrah And Drunk incest. 39 min RELIGION ROBBER L... 294
The Heathen's Home Page (Jun '13) 43 min purplelady1040 5,561
ISIS executes 262 1 hr Sceptical_Mal 12
Christian Fundamentalism 1 hr Sceptical_Mal 66
Never thought DB was actually gay, but... 1 hr Barnsweb 54
Challenge to all Christians 2 hr truthandcommonsense 386
Would Jesus have attended a Gay Wedding? 2 hr truthandcommonsense 2,053
Christians: Is this really Christian theology? 4 hr RELIGION ROBBER L... 125
Poll If you're Christain what kind are you? (Oct '07) 4 hr Rosa_Winkel 4,386
More from around the web