The Episcopal Church Approves Religious Weddings For Gays

[ivwshane]

SanDumski, talking out of both sides of his mouth....again.

Condeming someone because it was wrong to condemn someone.

Stupid left.

How very Christian of you.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

He can push them if he wants, you can push BACK if you want.

Just because you don't agree with those views or find them abhorrent doesn't at all affect his right to push them.

You need to learn what tolerance means.

Holy fucking irony batman

 

[MongGrel]

SanDumski, talking out of both sides of his mouth....again.

Condeming someone because it was wrong to condemn someone.

Stupid left.

I shall now call you a twat.

 

[ivwshane]

He can push them if he wants, you can push BACK if you want.

Just because you don't agree with those views or find them abhorrent doesn't at all affect his right to push them.

You need to learn what tolerance means.

Hence forth your name shall be Retro Rob the ironic!

 

[brycejones]

Libbys have this anal-backward mindset that simply voicing your displeasure with gay marriage is tantamount to "judging" a gay person.

Disagreeing is NOT the same as judging....

Please tell us more.

 

[Moonbeam]

He can push them if he wants, you can push BACK if you want.

Just because you don't agree with those views or find them abhorrent doesn't at all affect his right to push them.

You need to learn what tolerance means.

You speak out against gay marriage because you think it is evil. I speak out against bigots like you because you are evil and make what should be a good religion into an evil religion. Your intolerance is based on irrational belief and mine is based on the real and visible evil done in history by the perversion of religion by bigots. You need to learn what intolerance really is.

 

[dphantom]

Then he should leave it up to his god then.

I was going to say and stop pushing his views, but he doesn't.

I do.

Last i checked, we still have freedom of speech and expression. Did I miss something that changed? You may disagree with me, but I will never stop witnessing when and where I can, respectfully and as clearly as I can.

 

[sportage]

"If a man lies with a man as he lies with a woman, both have committed an abomination"

This is a simple one to explain.
"IF" a man sleeps with a woman, and also sleeps with a man, then THAT is the problem here.

However...
If a man lies with another man and only another man, AND NEVER with a woman, that detail is absolutely not addressed in this scripture.
This indeed states men who sleep with men should stay with men. PERIOD!
AND...
If a woman lies with a woman BUT NEVER a man, that too is not addressed.
What this scripture simply says is, no man should sleep with BOTH men and women.
No women should sleep with BOTH women and men.
In other words, no bisexuals. NO bisexuality.

Again, this scripture is not intended for a man that ONLY sleeps with another man.
Or women that only sleep with women.
This states NOT TO DO BOTH men AND women.
And THAT is EXACTLY what this scripture says.

Details, details, only he details please.
And just the facts ma'am.
DO NOT read something into scripture THAT IS CLEARLY NOT THERE....
Are you confused?
God was not confused.
The scripture is correct and stated EXACTLY as was intended.
DO NOT read something into scripture THAT IS CLEARLY NOT THERE....

PS. I am happy to have finally cleared up this confusion of mis-interpretation for all of humanity.
And no, I am not god, I only play one on TV.
And if I were god, boy would I give you people such a smack against the side of the head.
Read what is actually said, not what you think you want to hear.
.
.

 

[Retro Rob]

I do.

Last i checked, we still have freedom of speech and expression.

..and this is exactly the problem in this country. They want OBEDIENCE, and they would really want to silence anyone who disagrees.

Any logical person would see that Liberals are the biggest threat to freedom -- obey or be silenced.

The Right does put restrictions, but that's a far cry from silencing all dissent...the position they (left) take.

 

[Moonbeam]

..and this is exactly the problem in this country. They want OBEDIENCE, and they would really want to silence anyone who disagrees.

Any logical person would see that Liberals are the biggest threat to freedom -- obey or be silenced.

The Right does put restrictions, but that's a far cry from silencing all dissent...the position they (left) take.

"They" are morally outraged at you and your false god to whom you recommend such obedience that you have lost the ability to reason. We can't have psychopaths running around in the theater screaming evil gays because we are trying to watch the movie. We have to try to science you because you owe others that respect. Crazy people live to make other people nuts too. That's not very nice of you. It makes some people angry. It's like trying to stage a gay parade in the Vatican. It will cause a reaction.

 

[zinfamous]

The only person worse than one that knows nothing about the Bible is a person who THINKS he knows something about the Bible.

So, what's your excuse?

 

[zinfamous]

..and this is exactly the problem in this country. They want OBEDIENCE, and they would really want to silence anyone who disagrees.

Any logical person would see that Liberals are the biggest threat to freedom -- obey or be silenced.

The Right does put restrictions, but that's a far cry from silencing all dissent...the position they (left) take.

Ah, I see that the last two weeks have driven you firmly into full-on whackado mode.

Guess it's clear that your earlier attempts at some sort of rational moderation to your comments (yeah, they were there form time to time), were merely lip service. You were confident that you were "right," that the majority opinion in this country was yours, that your rightness was so right, that nothing could change that. This confidence allowed you to pretend as though you were a rational, considerate, thoughtful person. Now, your wrongness has been turned around, beaten you in the face, and the mask is off. Must suck.

good luck there.

 

[zinfamous]

Holy fucking irony batman

and here we have the, "Intolerance of my intolerance is the same intolerance!" argument.

Amazing how this type of stupidity persists.

 

[Retro Rob]

Ah, I see that the last two weeks have driven you firmly into full-on whackado mode.

Guess it's clear that your earlier attempts at some sort of rational moderation to your comments (yeah, they were there form time to time), were merely lip service. You were confident that you were "right," that the majority opinion in this country was yours, that your rightness was so right, that nothing could change that. This confidence allowed you to pretend as though you were a rational, considerate, thoughtful person. Now, your wrongness has been turned around, beaten you in the face, and the mask is off. Must suck.

good luck there.

Don't be fooled, I'm quite moderate on the issue of gay marriage itself. My issue is with Liberals, really, and their lies and hypocrisy and the removal of their critical thinking caps only to be substituted with their hearts and emotions.

That's the reason why I opened the polygamy thread. You've changed the definition of marriage to "an arrangement between consenting adults who love each other", well, that's until polygamists and pro-incestus people come forward to show how that vague definition literally applies to anyone in any marital setup.

Now I'm hearing arguments about "science" and "legal complications" from the same people who re-defined marriage to include them -- they didn't think forward, nor about consequences -- just what they want, when they want.

So please, don't get my views on gay marriage confused with my distain for hypocrites like you.

 

[sandorski]

Don't be fooled, I'm quite moderate on the issue of gay marriage itself. My issue is with Liberals, really, and their lies and hypocrisy and the removal of their critical thinking caps only to be substituted with their hearts and emotions.

That's the reason why I opened the polygamy thread. You've changed the definition of marriage to "an arrangement between consenting adults who love each other", well, that's until polygamists and pro-incestus people come forward to show how that vague definition literally applies to anyone in any marital setup.

Now I'm hearing arguments about "science" and "legal complications" from the same people who re-defined marriage to include them -- they didn't think forward, nor about consequences -- just what they want, when they want.

So please, don't get my views on gay marriage confused with my distain for hypocrites like you.

Where is this definition from?

 

[zinfamous]

Don't be fooled, I'm quite moderate on the issue of gay marriage itself. My issue is with Liberals, really, and their lies and hypocrisy and the removal of their critical thinking caps only to be substituted with their hearts and emotions.

That's the reason why I opened the polygamy thread. You've changed the definition of marriage to "an arrangement between consenting adults who love each other", well, that's until polygamists and pro-incestus people come forward to show how that vague definition literally applies to anyone in any marital setup.

Now I'm hearing arguments about "science" and "legal complications" from the same people who re-defined marriage to include them -- they didn't think forward, nor about consequences -- just what they want, when they want.

So please, don't get my views on gay marriage confused with my distain for hypocrites like you.

no definition has been changed. Please point to where this definition exists, as it pertains to legal statute.

Sorry, liberals didn't do anything to you. You are doing nothing but hinding behind this mask of "moderate views," all the while confident that this reality won't happen--the reality of an idea for which you claim to support.

Well, it happened. Here are your true colors. You are angry, and you blame the others.

Time to eat crow and stop playing team politics. You can't put god in the constitution, so until you find a sound secular argument against gay marriage we'll just continue to point and laugh as you guys flail about into obsolescence.

 

[JD50]

Don't be fooled, I'm quite moderate on the issue of gay marriage itself. My issue is with Liberals, really, and their lies and hypocrisy and the removal of their critical thinking caps only to be substituted with their hearts and emotions.

That's the reason why I opened the polygamy thread. You've changed the definition of marriage to "an arrangement between consenting adults who love each other", well, that's until polygamists and pro-incestus people come forward to show how that vague definition literally applies to anyone in any marital setup.

Now I'm hearing arguments about "science" and "legal complications" from the same people who re-defined marriage to include them -- they didn't think forward, nor about consequences -- just what they want, when they want.

So please, don't get my views on gay marriage confused with my distain for hypocrites like you.

And that thread backfired on you because just about everyone said that they have no problem with polygamy as long as the legal issues were worked out. The problem is that you aren't smart enough to understand when people are trying to explain to you the differences between the gay marriage issue and polygamy. A perfect example is when you attacked Cerpin and called him an intolerant bigot even after he said that he has no problem with polygamy.

Plenty of people have thought about the "consequences" of gay marriage, so far they seem to be about the same as allowing interracial marriage. More freedom and equality, oh no!

 

[Darwin333]

^Sabbath may not be Sunday. Just saying. Most Christians do not take that portion literally. It's an emphasis of how important a day of rest (and worship) is.

Let's not start a Christian bashing thread.

Well one of the 7 days is the Sabbath and it's been pretty much universally considered to be Sunday.

My point is simple though and it's not about bashing Christians, he pulled a bible verse from the OT to back up his claim. So the next question is why does he, and most other Christians, pick and choose which bible versus are to be taking literally? Who is the final decider? Is their a vote?