Campaign MelodysBits_Leaderboard_144993 does not have media of size 728x90
Online subscriber? Please Log In

Need Help? | Forgot Your Password?

At the altar, one journey ends and another begins

Jun 7, 2013 | 32 Comments

By Molly Walker
Of the News-Register

Only online subscribers may access this article. Subscribe online by clicking here. Already a subscriber, please .

Would you like to comment on this article?

Only online subscribers may comment on articles. Click here to see how you can subscribe.
Already a subscriber, please

Note: Some articles do not accept comments at all.


06:50 pm - Sun, June 9 2013
Bob E said:
Genesis 2:24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife and they shall become one flesh.

Mark 10:6-9 But from the beginning of creation God made them male and female. Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife and the two shall become one flesh. So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together let not man separate.

Romans 1:24-25 Therefore God gave them up in the lust of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie...
Romans 1:26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another.

No one in the article mentioned what the Lord God thinks about this relationship and the church's blessing upon it: Because marriage is God's creation and not man's I thought I would let His word speak for itself.
08:09 am - Mon, June 10 2013
Lulu said:
Oh, baloney. MY God said this marriage is none of your business. I quote,"This union be none of thy concern, Bob E."
09:46 am - Mon, June 10 2013
MackMini said:
I'm glad for them, God bless and keep you Lulu, we need more people just like you, compassionate and decent.
10:36 pm - Wed, June 12 2013
mejb said:
Bob E is right that marriage is God's creation and not man's. God's Word is Absolute Truth. Always has been. Always will be.
10:05 am - Thu, June 13 2013
sbagwell said:
Then maybe the rest of us ought to get out of the way and let God handle it.
If only God can decide whether a marriage is truly valid or not, why withhold government sanctions and deny private ceremonies. None of that is going to make any difference anyway.
That just amounts to one person imposing his or her values on another, which seems very popular these days.
If someone is going to impose values, let it be God in His own way. I don't see that He should need human help.
Steve Bagwell
11:00 am - Thu, June 13 2013
F-Minus said:
Whatever they may be, his or her values are in the eye of the beholder whether or not those values are met with invitation. Embrace the sodomite, or simply look away.
04:01 pm - Thu, June 13 2013
sbagwell said:
If that's another way of saying, "Live and let live," then we're in accord -- even if I find your "sodomite" terminology offensive.
06:21 pm - Thu, June 13 2013
Bob E said:
Let's extrapolate the idea of live and let live. How about accepting the pedophile, is that okay with you too? Should we just live and let live while pedophiles attack and abuse children? I mean it's just their sexual preferences isn't it? You see there is a limit to what a society can condone.

God's plan from eternity past is that a man and a woman are required to constitute a marriage. Suddenly in the 21st century you have come up with the idea that He is wrong. I don't think that's any of your business. He said it's wrong and it is: If you don't like it create your own world, set up your own rules, then you can do anything you want.

According to Romans 13 It is the God given responsibility of the governing authorities (read government) to punish evil or bad behavior and reward the good. Since we live in a democracy then it becomes our responsibility to petition our government to see to it that they stop evil and approve of what is good. God doesn't need human help, but He demands that we get involved with stopping what is wrong.

10:28 pm - Thu, June 13 2013
F-Minus said:
What do you find offensive about the word sodomite, Steve, is it not an accurate descriptor?

A cannibal is to cannibalism, what a sodomite is to sodomy. I myself not being a cannibal am offended by the very idea of mortuary cannibalism, yet, there are people that believe that dining on the flesh of their dearly departed is a high honor bestowed only to those they love the most.

Personally, I intend to be cremated. I find the very idea of mortuary cannibalism just too repulsive to even contemplate. So, should our society eventually become permissive enough to except cannibalism, and when that day comes I find myself visiting cemetery's on Memorial Day (as is my custom) I will refrain from asking what the folks visiting their loved ones what they are enjoying for lunch, or simply look away.
10:55 pm - Thu, June 13 2013
Sally G said:
Many blessings on the marriage of Teresa and Sunshine! God's love is stronger than the quibbles of God's children.
11:40 am - Fri, June 14 2013
Carl Dubois said:

It's amazing how often I'm reminded of the quote, attributed to multiple people at various times in history, a theology professor told me: "God created man in His image, and man returned the favor."

The above quotes from scripture remind me of this letter to the editor published June 8 in The Columbian in Vancouver:

As told to me by a friend:

"For those who haven't heard, Washington state just passed both laws — gay marriage and legalized marijuana.

"The fact that gay marriage and marijuana were legalized on the same day makes perfect biblical sense because Leviticus 20:13 says 'If a man lies with another man, as he does with a woman, they should be stoned.'

"We just hadn't interpreted it correctly before."
12:12 pm - Fri, June 14 2013
sbagwell said:
F-Minus — Here's some analysis from someone with a lot more expertise that I:
There are only four verses in all of Scripture - one in Deuteronomy and three in 1st Kings - which use the word SODOMITE:
"There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a SODOMITE of the sons of Israel." -Deuteronomy 23:17
"For they also built them high places, and images, and groves, on every high hill, and under every green tree. And there were also SODOMITES in the land, and they did according to all the abominations of the nations which the Lord cast out before the children of Israel." -1st Kings 14:23-24
"And he took away the SODOMITES out of the land, and removed all the idols that his fathers had made." -1st Kings 15:12
"Now the rest of the acts of Jehoshaphat, and his might that he showed, and how he warred, are they not written in the Book of the Chronicles of the kings of Judah? And the remnant of the SODOMITES, which remained in the days of his father Asa, he took out of the land." -1st Kings 22:43-46
The Hebrew word the King Jame Version translates as "sodomite" is "kadesh." As a reader of Hebrew, I know and understand the definition of kadesh. Strong's Concordance defines it as: "a male devotee by prostitution or licentious idolatry; a sodomite, unclean."
Literally, kadesh refers to male prostitution in pagan religious rites. It does not refer to a homosexual, but rather, male religious prostitution, either heterosexual or homosexual.
The context of the cited verses confirms the Strong's definition. In every case that "sodomite" occurs in the Scriptures, we see it coupled with idolatry or prostitution, which is exactly what a Sodomite would be involved with. A sodomite is the male equivalent of a female temple prostitute, used for sexual rituals and orgies to false gods, such as Dionysus, Bacchus, Baal, and Dagon.
12:23 pm - Fri, June 14 2013
sbagwell said:
F-Minus — I would further note that the modern dictionary definition of sodomy is anal OR oral sex, either homosexual OR heterosexual. That being the case, your use of the word is highly misleading, in addition to being pejorative in both fact and intent.
What's more, relationships are hardly defined solely by their sexual component. That line of thinking seems incredibly narrow to me.
That's why I find the term offensive. It distorts and demeans the nature of a loving and committed relationship two of our fellow human beings.
01:07 pm - Fri, June 14 2013
F-Minus said:
Myself not being a reader of Hebrew, I'll just have to take your word on that, Steve.

Carl, that was funny.
01:26 pm - Fri, June 14 2013
F-Minus said:
Steve, of course relationships are hardly defined solely by their sexual component, should that be the case, a male and female pair of quadriplegics would be denied a marriage.license.

As for pejoratives in both fact and intent, I'll take that as a personal attack on me by you, Steve, which you so often are prone to do when we do not agree.
04:39 pm - Fri, June 14 2013
sbagwell said:
You can argue with a straight face that "sodomite" isn't a pejorative term? No negative connotations there, either in fact or intent? Nothing loaded about that terminology? The kind of thing you would bandy about in everyday conversation in polite society?
The next thing you know, you'll be trying to convince me it was meant as a term of endearment, that you were thinking, "Gee, aren't those sodomites looking lovely in the wedding day finery?"
A slur is a slur. We all know them when we see them.

06:31 pm - Fri, June 14 2013
F-Minus said:

Because "Gee, aren't those sodomites looking lovely in the wedding day finery?" is something you may come up with, that is all that is, something that you'd came up with, and not I.

You are the one slinging the slurs. It's what you do when someone disagrees with you, and no, my use of the term is not meant as an endearment, but neither was it meant as a slur. Are you going to next label me as a 'hater' because I am in disagreement with the idea of same-sex marriage.

Anytime I've ever been offered the opportunity to vote on the subject, I have alway voted in the affirmative that marriage continue being defined a committal only through the joining of 'One Man and One Woman' at any given time.

"You're marvelous, relax...."
06:43 pm - Fri, June 14 2013
F-Minus said:
you may quote me on that much and be accurate.
11:57 am - Sat, June 15 2013
Lulu said:
"Something that you'd came up with"????? F-Minus, your name appears to describe you.
Go back to your holy Jim Bakkers, Jimmie Swaggerts, the entire disgusting Oral Roberts family, Ted what's-his-name with his young men escorts, the pervert Warren Jeffs, all those weeping money-grubbing hypocrites sucking revenue from poor people in order to live in mansions, and not the kind Jesus was referencing.
All of you with stones in your hands ready to throw makes me glad I don't believe your nasty fairy tales. Plus you have absolutely no shred of humor. Icky, nasty, killjoys.
12:47 pm - Sat, June 15 2013
F-Minus said:
Never have I been associated in any manner with any of those people, Lulu, and I will agree your assessment, other than your reference to the casting of stones. As I have cast none.

Casting stones seems to be your specialty.

I am merely stating my perspective on same-sex marriage and I could care less what your personal beliefs are, Lulu, but you are welcome to express them.
10:39 am - Sun, June 16 2013
Lulu said:
Thanks. But "those people," from whom you distance yourself, also reference the Bible with the same literal interpretation that you do, F-Minus.
You truly appear to relish throwing around the term "sodomite," don't you? Creeps me out.
11:10 am - Sun, June 16 2013
Lulu said:
And speaking of personal beliefs, haven't you been stating yours all along? Your "perspective" translates to your personal belief.
12:03 pm - Sun, June 16 2013
F-Minus said:
A lot of things "creeps me out.", too. Take the term Gay, it's a word that was snagged by those that felt creeped out by the use of the word Queer. There's really nothing inappropriate about the word queer, per say, when it is used in proper context as a descriptor, is there?

I mean heck, even her majesty the Queen of England feels no need to blush when the word is spoken in her presence. Queen is another word that some have found useful as a descriptor in the parlance of your more modern day sodomites.

Homosexual and Heterosexual are both scientific terms coined in modern times.

Should only modern day scientific terms be deemed as appropriate when describing people with different proclivities? Personally, I am highly offended when being described as being 'Caucasian', yet, I must endure that indignity because some scientists got together and coined the term as a descriptor.

The word 'sodomite' has been used as a behavioral descriptor long before people started reading the bible, as the term itself predates the Bible. As for what I relish, that I generally limit to hot dogs, hamburgers and my potato salad.

As for my personal beliefs, sure, but I manage to share mine without the casting stones....
01:03 pm - Sun, June 16 2013
F-Minus said:
How do we view things, what helps us to shape our perspectives?

Obviously, there will always be resistance to accepting what a majority of people view as repugnant or too deviant a concept.

Example: "Theoretically, there's nothing wrong with this," -said Douglas Powell, a professor of food safety at Kansas State University.

"It could be quite safe to eat, but I'm sure there's a yuck factor there."

To make swallowing a little bit easier, a nutty flavor was added using soy protein, and red food coloring was mixed in too, apparently to make the concoction look more like a juicy, bloody steak.

A few brave researchers even took the plunge and taste-tested the product.

(Apparently it tastes like regular beef.)

The official composition of the lab-grown steak is 63% proteins, 25% carbohydrates, 3% lipids and 9% minerals. And I am quite positive that at some point an official indoctrination of children will be pushed to accept this product as an (in the parlance of the day) acceptable societal alternative to be viewed as equal to the original in concept.

It's not the same, and never will be, no matter what you choose to call it.

06:27 am - Mon, June 17 2013
Fletch said:
As Sativex is to the real deal.
08:22 am - Mon, June 17 2013
Fletch said:
The only reason this is a subject in my life @ this point in time is because media has brought this to me. It means nothing and will have zero impact on my life. I don't need a document written to make decissions for me. The Bible, in my humble opinion has been written to keep people under control. If you can't think for yourself, read this document and live it and if things don't shake out, It was gods will. An easy out. Not to mention the revinue generated from it. Fear, is a great way to genterate revenue. If you you don't wash your hair with this, you won't find a mate. for example....Capitolism is the master of fear genterated revinue.
Someone told me that the Catholic church is the largest business in the intire world. No birth control equals more children who grow up to make more donations. Priest can't marry due to the fact they will leave assests to their families instead of the church. HMMM...
If the people in this article are impacting you other then what you read here, overt your eyes and move on to the next article.
09:13 am - Mon, June 17 2013
Lulu said:
Has anyone noticed how some people who manifest a prurient fixation over a specific lifestyle do so because of a deeply rooted suspicion about themselves?
That is not a stone but a theory. Let's hope the Rapture arrives sooner than later. You can all be together enjoying the peace that apparently eludes you on this planet.

11:09 am - Mon, June 17 2013
F-Minus said:
The Human mind is an incredible creation, that's for sure.
12:43 pm - Mon, June 17 2013
Fletch said:
I miss spoke. Cover your eyes.
02:32 pm - Mon, June 17 2013
F-Minus said:
Fletch, I'd once queried a Catholic priest about his personal thoughts concerning the number of shiney Cadillacs and Mercedes Benz automobiles parked in the lot of the church rectory. Amongst all of the luxury on display was one lonely, solitary Plymouth Valiant, and in 'the parlance of the times' it was a real beater from my perspective.

I'd asked him "who drives the Plymouth?" and he'd replied "the nuns do, it meets their simple needs."
11:59 am - Thu, June 20 2013
Fletch said:
"That just amounts to one person imposing his or her values on another, which seems very popular these days.
If someone is going to impose values, let it be God in His own way. I don't see that He should need human help."
Steve Bagwell
If only the News Register took that stance on all subject...
05:36 pm - Thu, June 20 2013
sbagwell said:
We don't impose values, we merely offer opinions. There's a big difference.
Nor am I aware of us ever endorsing imposition of values by the government or any other entity.
We think private citizens should be able to marry or not as they see fit, without government interference, and I think that generally matches out line of thought.
Where we support government regulation, it is in the interest of public order, equity or safety, not in the interest of a particular set of values, be they yours or ours.
Steve Bagwell, managing editor

© 1999- News-Register Publishing | © The Associated Press
The News-Register and are owned and operated by News-Register Publishing Co., P.O. Box 727, McMinnville, OR 97128.
All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Web design & powered by LVSYS