Will Gay Marriage Pit Church Against ...

Will Gay Marriage Pit Church Against Church?

There are 16101 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.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#16962 Jun 15, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Because we always have.
We did not know some were infertile.
Many elderly already HAVE had children.
Most couples change their mind.
Duh.
Tradition doesn't explain the tradition. Do you understand? EXPLAIN THE TRADITION. People who were obviously incapable of reproducing (for instance, war injury to the testes) were allowed to marry. Before it went on for a long time, it hadn't gone on for a long time. Why would it have been allowed before it was tradition?

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#16963 Jun 15, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Nothing I've said has any restriction on developing ss relationships.
I simply and accurately point out that ss couples can never equate to marriage. Nor should they need marriage to establish stable bonded relationships. A piece of paper will never make that happen for any relationship.
Fine, but do you object to granting such couples the rights and privileges that come along with legal marriage? Not religious marriage, mind you...just the civil secular legal marriage.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#16964 Jun 15, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Because we always have.
We did not know some were infertile.
Many elderly already HAVE had children.
Most couples change their mind.
Duh.
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Tradition doesn't explain the tradition. Do you understand? EXPLAIN THE TRADITION. People who were obviously incapable of reproducing (for instance, war injury to the testes) were allowed to marry. Before it went on for a long time, it hadn't gone on for a long time. Why would it have been allowed before it was tradition?
Those reasons are not 'traditions', they are reasons.

They are self-explanatory to most people...

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#16965 Jun 15, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Fine, but do you object to granting such couples the rights and privileges that come along with legal marriage? Not religious marriage, mind you...just the civil secular legal marriage.
Never had a problem with ss couples establishing legitimate rights.

It just is not marriage.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#16966 Jun 15, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Because we always have.
We did not know some were infertile.
Many elderly already HAVE had children.
Most couples change their mind.
Duh.
<quoted text>
Those reasons are not 'traditions', they are reasons.
They are self-explanatory to most people...
Yours, maybe, but not those of the Law.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#16967 Jun 15, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Because we always have.
We did not know some were infertile.
Many elderly already HAVE had children.
Most couples change their mind.
Duh.
<quoted text>
Those reasons are not 'traditions', they are reasons.
They are self-explanatory to most people...
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Yours, maybe, but not those of the Law.
At this point, the law supports those historical facts.

Here would be a better example;

Medical science says anal sex is inherently harmful, unhealthy and demeaning.

The law says sodomy is 'legal'.

See the difference?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#16968 Jun 15, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Because we always have.
We did not know some were infertile.
Many elderly already HAVE had children.
Most couples change their mind.
Duh.
<quoted text>
Those reasons are not 'traditions', they are reasons.
They are self-explanatory to most people...
<quoted text>
At this point, the law supports those historical facts.
Here would be a better example;
Medical science says anal sex is inherently harmful, unhealthy and demeaning.
The law says sodomy is 'legal'.
See the difference?
The laws is not BASED upon those opinions.

“God Loves Ilks!”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#16969 Jun 15, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
The laws is not BASED upon those opinions.
Exactly!

I have two relatives who married and made the choice to just not have children.

Religious beliefs do not rule our laws or government.
It is time some folks realize this.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#16970 Jun 15, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
The laws is not BASED upon those opinions.
My point exactly.

Sodomy is still inherently harmful, unhealthy and demeaning.

Ss couples are not married in the real sense.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#16971 Jun 15, 2013
Nettiebelle wrote:
<quoted text>Exactly!
I have two relatives who married and made the choice to just not have children.
Religious beliefs do not rule our laws or government.
It is time some folks realize this.
Where did religion come into those facts?

“praying for you!”

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#16972 Jun 15, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no "entire" bible as if it were a coherent work. The Hebrew writings were collated and canonized by Pharisee Rabbis in the wake of the destruction of Jerusalem, and this was adopted by Saul's gentile followers. The Greek writings weren't codified into the form you recognize until Martin Luther.
You talk like an automoton that has been programmed to believe an historical inaccuracy. Who benefits (and has benefited) by having you belief in a monolithic "bible"?
Grab your popcorn and learn something ...
http://www.hulu.com/ #!search?q=Who+Wrote+the+Bible %3F
http://www.hulu.com/ #!search?q=Who+Wrote+the+New+T estament%3F
I only suggest these, even with their flaws, because they are entertaining and not mentally taxing, and because I seriously doubt that you will trouble yourself to read the materials necessary to develop an accurate historical perspective.
excuse me but the first 5 books of the OT (Torah) the LAWS OF GOD
was read from and taught from by Jesus and other priest following Christ in the temples.
so you can't rightly sit there and claim there was no scriptures from the time God gave the laws to moses (IN STONE) to put in writing to give to the people.

You neglect to understand that that holy bible IS an entire book
From creation all the way to the END of life on earth as we know it.
Genesis to Revelation, it is an ongoing unfolding continuation of events and prophecy.
and it is absolutely accurate.

If you are foolish enough to find it amusing and mockingly so
then i would simply caution you that God says He will NOT be mocked, for what you sow you WILL reap.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#16973 Jun 15, 2013
Walterwalter wrote:
<quoted text>
excuse me but the first 5 books of the OT (Torah) the LAWS OF GOD
was read from and taught from by Jesus and other priest following Christ in the temples.
so you can't rightly sit there and claim there was no scriptures from the time God gave the laws to moses (IN STONE) to put in writing to give to the people.
You neglect to understand that that holy bible IS an entire book
From creation all the way to the END of life on earth as we know it.
Genesis to Revelation, it is an ongoing unfolding continuation of events and prophecy.
and it is absolutely accurate.
If you are foolish enough to find it amusing and mockingly so
then i would simply caution you that God says He will NOT be mocked, for what you sow you WILL reap.
What laws were broken in the Book of Genesis causing God to murder all the people?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#16974 Jun 15, 2013
Walterwalter wrote:
<quoted text>
excuse me but the first 5 books of the OT (Torah) the LAWS OF GOD
was read from and taught from by Jesus and other priest following Christ in the temples.
so you can't rightly sit there and claim there was no scriptures from the time God gave the laws to moses (IN STONE) to put in writing to give to the people.
You neglect to understand that that holy bible IS an entire book
From creation all the way to the END of life on earth as we know it.
Genesis to Revelation, it is an ongoing unfolding continuation of events and prophecy.
and it is absolutely accurate.
If you are foolish enough to find it amusing and mockingly so
then i would simply caution you that God says He will NOT be mocked, for what you sow you WILL reap.
Know the term "TaNaKh" ? It's an acronym meaning, "the Torah, the Prophets and the other writings". Even the pharisees who collated the writings according to their sectarian perspectives did not see their anthology as the monolithic creation that you seem to claim that it is.

The "new testament" most definitely isn't either.

Simply restating an non-scriptural and heretical tradition that doesn't fit with history is not rational examination of the subject.

Learn something.

http://www.hulu.com/ #!search?q=Who+Wrote+the+Bible %3F

http://www.hulu.com/ #!search?q=Who+Wrote+the+New+T estament%3F

Again, I only suggest these, even with their flaws, because they are entertaining and not mentally taxing, and because I seriously doubt that you will trouble yourself to read the materials necessary to develop an accurate historical perspective.

At least wikisearch "antilegomena". That will get you started on the patristic records which will begin to demonstrate how wrong the Biblicist assertion is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antilegomena

For an excellent discussion (even if loaded with sectarian bias) of some of the main problems with the Biblicist hypothesis, give this a few minutes:

http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologeti...

If you can dodge the author's attempts to suggest that only his sect provides the solution to the problems, you'll see that while his solution is bunk his enumeration of the problems is quite accurate.

“praying for you!”

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#16975 Jun 15, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
What laws were broken in the Book of Genesis causing God to murder all the people?
Murder
Idolatry
Sexual immorality
refusal to obey the laws of God

the bible says if you are guilty of breaking ONE commandment
you are guilty of breaking them all.......

"for whosoever shall keep the whole law, yet offend in ONE point
he is guilty of all." James 2:10

thats why God sent Jesus, cause NO ONE can keep the entire law perfectly. God knew that.

“praying for you!”

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#16976 Jun 15, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Know the term "TaNaKh" ? It's an acronym meaning, "the Torah, the Prophets and the other writings". Even the pharisees who collated the writings according to their sectarian perspectives did not see their anthology as the monolithic creation that you seem to claim that it is.
The "new testament" most definitely isn't either.
Simply restating an non-scriptural and heretical tradition that doesn't fit with history is not rational examination of the subject.
Learn something.
http://www.hulu.com/ #!search?q=Who+Wrote+the+Bible %3F
http://www.hulu.com/ #!search?q=Who+Wrote+the+New+T estament%3F
Again, I only suggest these, even with their flaws, because they are entertaining and not mentally taxing, and because I seriously doubt that you will trouble yourself to read the materials necessary to develop an accurate historical perspective.
At least wikisearch "antilegomena". That will get you started on the patristic records which will begin to demonstrate how wrong the Biblicist assertion is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antilegomena
For an excellent discussion (even if loaded with sectarian bias) of some of the main problems with the Biblicist hypothesis, give this a few minutes:
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologeti...
If you can dodge the author's attempts to suggest that only his sect provides the solution to the problems, you'll see that while his solution is bunk his enumeration of the problems is quite accurate.
why not just speak it clear and simply
all this fancy two-stepping is your way of saying you deny the power of God and His written word.

correct?

and of course the Pharisees didn't take stock in the written word then.
they argued with Jesus over it.

The Holy bible has (still is) proving itself trustworthy by the test of time.

a person either trusts God or they don't.
and NO ONE can go it alone.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#16977 Jun 15, 2013
Walterwalter wrote:
<quoted text>
Murder
Idolatry
Sexual immorality
refusal to obey the laws of God
the bible says if you are guilty of breaking ONE commandment
you are guilty of breaking them all.......
"for whosoever shall keep the whole law, yet offend in ONE point
he is guilty of all." James 2:10
thats why God sent Jesus, cause NO ONE can keep the entire law perfectly. God knew that.
There were no commandments. Moses didn't exist yet. Nor did Jesus.

Try again.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#16978 Jun 15, 2013
Walterwalter wrote:
<quoted text>
why not just speak it clear and simply
all this fancy two-stepping is your way of saying you deny the power of God and His written word.
correct?
and of course the Pharisees didn't take stock in the written word then.
they argued with Jesus over it.
The Holy bible has (still is) proving itself trustworthy by the test of time.
a person either trusts God or they don't.
and NO ONE can go it alone.
Again, you demonstrate your faulty history education, and distorted thinking.

Learn something.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#16979 Jun 15, 2013
Let's get into the pharisees with someone who should know. He was raised as one.



Learn something.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#16980 Jun 15, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Because we always have.
We did not know some were infertile.
Many elderly already HAVE had children.
Most couples change their mind.
Duh.
<quoted text>
Those reasons are not 'traditions', they are reasons.
They are self-explanatory to most people...
Your answer does not address my question, STILL. Why were/are people who were obviously not able to have children allowed to marry?

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#16981 Jun 15, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Never had a problem with ss couples establishing legitimate rights.
It just is not marriage.
Ah, so you support "separate but equal." Sorry, but that's been deemed unconstitutional. Unless you think Plessy v. Ferguson was good law.

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 Religion, higher education and critical thinking (Aug '15) 4 min I love jesus 9,512
PAUL OUR FATHER . 1Cor 4: 15 (Feb '16) 50 min Allen Richards 54
Scientific Proof Of GOD(for dummies) 58 min 15th Dalai Lama 2,375
BIBLE QUESTIONS to KAB 1 hr BARNS Bro 43
I'm YOUR FATHER, IMITATE ME! (Jan '16) 1 hr BARNS Bro 10
Why the Earth Was Created in Six Days 1 hr blacklagoon 43
ASK THE LORD of THE SPIRIT REALM 3 hr Sceptical_Mal 38
A God Who Disagrees With The Data 11 hr I love Jesus 444
More from around the web