# Mormons face flak for backing Prop. 8



## min0 lee (Oct 28, 2008)

Mormons face flak for backing Prop. 8

Mormons face flak for backing Prop. 8
Matthai Kuruvila, Chronicle Religion Writer
Monday, October 27, 2008

(10-26) 14:40 PDT OAKLAND -- Christine Alonso's body trembled and her lips quivered as she walked up and spoke to a few of the 50 protesters in front of the Mormon Temple in Oakland on Sunday.

"Don't think they're all against you," said Alonso, 27, explaining that she was Mormon and that despite her religious leaders' support of a ballot measure banning same-sex marriage, she was actively opposed.

As she walked away, she said, "I'm afraid that a gay or lesbian friend might hear that I'm Mormon and think that I want to tear their marriage apart."

Alonso's solitary act came as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its members are increasingly under fire for their support of Proposition 8, which would take away the right of gays and lesbians to marry. In addition to increased protests, online campaigns seek to identify and embarrass Mormons who support the ballot measure.

The church largely stays out of politics. But in this case, the Salt Lake City-based church has sent letters, held video conferences and in church meetings asked for volunteers to support the campaign. In response, some church members have poured in their savings and undertaken what may be an unprecedented grassroots mobilization for the effort.

Prop. 8 is on pace to be the costliest race in the nation, except for the billion-dollar presidential election. The Yes on 8 campaign estimates that up to 40 percent of its donations come from Mormons. Some others estimate that Mormons account for over 70 percent of donations from individuals.

All of California's Catholic bishops have all come out in favor of the measure. So have many evangelical Christians and Orthodox Jews. Yet it is Mormons, who account for 2 percent of the state population, who are catching the most heat.

"We seem to be the symbol of the Yes on 8 campaign," said Rand King, 60, a Walnut Creek resident who is Mormon and who was watching Sunday's protest from inside the temple's gates.

Prop. 8 opponents are increasingly narrowing their focus on Mormons, harnessing technology and open-records laws in their efforts. One Web site run by a Prop. 8 opponent, Mormonsfor8.com, identifies the name and hometown of every Mormon donor. On the Daily Kos, the nation's most popular liberal blog, there is a campaign to use that information to look into the lives of Mormons who financially support Prop. 8.

It has led some Mormons to question why other religious groups in the coalition aren't being targeted.

"I don't think it's politically expedient to point the finger at the Catholic Church," said Dave Christensen, 52, a Mormon and an Alamo resident who donated $30,000 to the Yes on 8 campaign. "You don't get the mileage criticizing a church that has more clout."

Nadine Hansen, who runs Mormonsfor8.com, said the church decided to enter politics and can't excuse itself for the ramifications.

"Any group that gets involved in the political arena has to be treated like a political action committee," said Hansen, 61, a Mormon who lives in Cedar City, Utah, and has stopped going to church. "You can't get involved in politics and say, 'Treat me as a church.' "Hansen said she focused on Mormons because she is one. She said Mormons have contacted her to shut the site, saying it was being used by the Daily Kos campaign in a "witch hunt."

"I didn't think there were any witches on the list, so I wasn't worried," said Hansen, whose site is "neutral" on its views, though she is opposed because she views it as "divisive."

The person who initiated the Daily Kos campaign to look into the lives of Mormon donors is Dante Atkins, an elected delegate to the state Democratic convention who said he's the vice president of the Los Angeles County Young Democrats.

Atkins said his goal was to "embarrass the opposition by pointing out and publicizing any contributors they may have." He said focusing on Mormons made sense. "If one religious group is putting close to the majority of the money and the effort into passing this proposition, it is fair to single them out."

The Mormon church hasn't taken the same level of interest in Arizona or Florida, which also have constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage.

But California is a bellwether, said LDS spokesman Mike Otterson. "If same-gender marriage is approved in California... other states will follow suit."

Several Bay Area Mormons said they would support the right of gay and lesbian unions to have all the rights of married couples. But the word marriage was sacred, pivotal to their concept of families, who can be "eternally united" in the afterlife. A key church document - "The Family: A Proclamation to the World" - says that "marriage between man and a woman is essential to His eternal plan." They also believe that children are entitled to be raised by a father and a mother.

Those words speak for Michele Sundstrom, 47, of San Jose, who has been married for 18 years and has five children.

She and her husband gave $30,000 to the Yes on 8 campaign and put a sign on their home. But in response, two women parked an SUV in front of their home, with the words "Bigots live here" painted on the windshield.

Sundstrom believes such responses must come from deep places of pain - and that gays and lesbians are entitled to the same rights as heterosexuals, just not the word marriage. Any animosity toward gays or lesbians is wrong, she said.

"There must be such deep, deep, deep hurt; otherwise there couldn't be so much opposition," she said. "They've lived with this. I guess we're getting a taste of where they live."

E-mail Matthai Kuruvila at mkuruvila@sfchronicle.com.


----------



## min0 lee (Oct 28, 2008)




----------



## min0 lee (Oct 28, 2008)




----------



## Big Smoothy (Oct 28, 2008)

Mormonism is a cult.

Period.

The more you learn about Mormonism that more disturbing it becomes.


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 28, 2008)

Big Smoothy said:


> Mormonism is a cult.
> 
> Period.
> 
> The more you learn about Mormonism that more disturbing it becomes.



and this is why people don't listen to you


----------



## NeilPearson (Oct 28, 2008)

Big Smoothy said:


> Mormonism is a cult.
> 
> Period.
> 
> The more you learn about Mormonism that more disturbing it becomes.


----------



## NeilPearson (Oct 28, 2008)

I don't know why people can't just leave other people alone and quit trying to push their values on others.

If you want to follow some crazy ass religion, that's fine just don't try and push your values into law that affects everyone else.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Oct 28, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> and this is why people don't listen to you



Do your own research bio-chem.

I notice your location is "Utah."

Use specific facts with me, and I'll respond with my facts.

Otherwise, YOU lose credibility.


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 28, 2008)

Big Smoothy said:


> Do your own research bio-chem.
> 
> I notice your location is "Utah."
> 
> ...



specific facts? kelju just posted yesterday that your posts are not treated seriously. how about them apples?

I don't need to prove the LDS faith is not a cult. Research? thats laughable. If you have something specific feel free.


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 28, 2008)

NeilPearson said:


> that's fine just don't try and push your values into law that affects everyone else.



For over 200 years in this country marriage was between a man and a woman. now, without any legislation being passed this is changing here in the US. who exactly is pushing their values?


----------



## lnvanry (Oct 28, 2008)

Big Smoothy said:


> Mormonism is a cult.
> 
> Period.
> 
> The more you learn about Mormonism that more disturbing it becomes.




Its no more a cult than any other organized religion...there are varying degrees of practice and interpretation Smoothy.  I've met some off the wall Mormons before...and some off the wall Catholics and Protestants as well.

What makes you think every Mormon member is cult practitioner?


----------



## lnvanry (Oct 28, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> For over 200 years in this country marriage was between a man and a woman. now, without any legislation being passed this is changing here in the US. who exactly is pushing their values?



and for a few hundred years blacks were slaves...did the Emancipation Proc seem like pushing values on the South?  You bet it did...sometimes the public needs to be forced to accept change.

I'm not a gay rights activist, but I would vote for gay marriage rights.  It seems like the last socially acceptable prejudice left in the Western society.


----------



## mcguin (Oct 28, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> For over 200 years in this country marriage was between a man and a woman. now, without any legislation being passed this is changing here in the US. who exactly is pushing their values?



being gay isnt a form of religion or a cult....


----------



## tucker01 (Oct 28, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> For over 200 years in this country marriage was between a man and a woman. now, without any legislation being passed this is changing here in the US. who exactly is pushing their values?



Values or equality?

Gays want the same rights to see the fuck up called marriage


----------



## mcguin (Oct 28, 2008)

and for smoothy, as mentioned above, nobody is any different being catholic than they are being mormon, than they are being jewish.


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 28, 2008)

lnvanry said:


> and for a few hundred years blacks were slaves...did the Emancipation Proc seem like pushing values on the South?  You bet it did...sometimes the public needs to be forced to accept change.
> 
> I'm not a gay rights activist, but I would vote for gay marriage rights.  It seems like the last socially acceptable prejudice left in the Western society.



the emancipation proclimation was followed by the 13th 14th and 15th amendments.


----------



## mcguin (Oct 28, 2008)

there's two sides to everything...you cant refer to mormons as being extremists or what not when the catholic church is denying people of human rights and freedom of expression.


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 28, 2008)

mcguin said:


> being gay isnt a form of religion or a cult....



i wasn't saying it was.


----------



## PreMier (Oct 28, 2008)

NeilPearson said:


> I don't know why people can't just leave other people alone and quit trying to push their values on others.
> 
> If you want to follow some crazy ass religion, that's fine just don't try and push your values into law that affects everyone else.



did you read the part where only 2% of the population is mormon, but they are catching the most flak?

all the major catholic bishops and some evangelical leaders agree with it as well.


----------



## mcguin (Oct 28, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> i wasn't saying it was.



you compared gay marriage...


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 28, 2008)

mcguin said:


> there's two sides to everything...you cant refer to mormons as being extremists or what not when the catholic church is denying people of human rights and freedom of expression.



I'm not sure why I'm letting myself make an issue of this. It is a good political ploy for the anti prop8 people to demonise prop8 by tying it to Mormons. It won't work, but they are going to try. thats fine.


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 28, 2008)

mcguin said:


> you compared gay marriage...



You're going to have to clarify. I didn't compare gay marriage to a religion or a cult.


----------



## PreMier (Oct 28, 2008)

Big Smoothy said:


> Do your own research bio-chem.
> 
> I notice your location is "Utah."
> 
> ...



you have facts that the LDS religion is a cult?  your stating an opinion, nothing more.  like stated above, all organized religion could be considered a cult, it just depends what the definition is.


----------



## mcguin (Oct 28, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> You're going to have to clarify. I didn't compare gay marriage to a religion or a cult.



nevermind biochem, its not worth it...


----------



## KelJu (Oct 28, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> For over 200 years in this country marriage was between a man and a woman. now, without any legislation being passed this is changing here in the US. who exactly is pushing their values?



A gay couple that you will never meet somewhere in a town you will never go to having the right to be legally married does not qualify as "pushing values" onto you. 

However, to legally ban that gay couple from being married pushes your values onto them in the most powerful way.


----------



## mcguin (Oct 28, 2008)

KelJu said:


> A gay couple that you will never meet somewhere in a town you will never go to having the right to be legally married does not qualify as "pushing values" onto you.
> 
> However, to legally ban that gay couple from being married pushes your values onto them in the most powerful way.



right on!


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 28, 2008)

KelJu said:


> A gay couple that you will never meet somewhere in a town you will never go to having the right to be legally married does not qualify as "pushing values" onto you.
> 
> However, to legally ban that gay couple from being married pushes your values onto them in the most powerful way.



really? it doesn't? the government putting their stamp of approval on this?  how will it be taught in schools, or incorporated into sex ed classes? this is not a question of being bigoted or something like that. people have the right to pass laws determining the type of society they wish to live in. thats whats happening. if the people want to allow gay marriage then a law should be passed. legislation. isn't that what this is all about? asking my government not to recognize gay marriage is not pushing my values onto anyone. I'm not stopping anyone from living their lives


----------



## NeilPearson (Oct 28, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> For over 200 years in this country marriage was between a man and a woman. now, without any legislation being passed this is changing here in the US. who exactly is pushing their values?



Slavery was legal at one time too.  It doesn't make it right.  Gays finally got equal rights with marriage and now you want to take it away.

Exactly why do you care?  It doesn't affect you.  Why not just let them do what they want?  It's not like it is hurting anyone


----------



## NeilPearson (Oct 28, 2008)

lnvanry said:


> *Its no more a cult than any other organized religion*



I'll agree with that.  The only difference between any organized religion and a cult is that a religion has larger numbers and because of that, it's more socially acceptable.

Religions = Large Cults


----------



## NeilPearson (Oct 28, 2008)

IainDaniel said:


> Values or equality?
> 
> Gays want the same rights to see the fuck up called marriage



I don't think gays should be protected from marriage.  They should have to suffer like the rest of us


----------



## NeilPearson (Oct 28, 2008)

mcguin said:


> there's two sides to everything...you cant refer to mormons as being extremists or what not when the catholic church is denying people of human rights and freedom of expression.



I agree... they are both twisted


----------



## NeilPearson (Oct 28, 2008)

PreMier said:


> did you read the part where only 2% of the population is mormon, but they are catching the most flak?
> 
> all the major catholic bishops and some evangelical leaders agree with it as well.



Okay... they suck too then


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 28, 2008)

NeilPearson said:


> Slavery was legal at one time too.  It doesn't make it right.  Gays finally got equal rights with marriage and now you want to take it away.



I love the comparison to slavery. It is absolutely nothing alike.


----------



## NeilPearson (Oct 28, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> really? it doesn't? the government putting their stamp of approval on this?  how will it be taught in schools, or incorporated into sex ed classes? this is not a question of being bigoted or something like that. people have the right to pass laws determining the type of society they wish to live in. thats whats happening. if the people want to allow gay marriage then a law should be passed. legislation. isn't that what this is all about? asking my government not to recognize gay marriage is not pushing my values onto anyone. I'm not stopping anyone from living their lives



Like the school system is going to teach gayness and turn all our youth gay 

And yes, you are stopping them from living their lives by denying them the right to marriage


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 28, 2008)

NeilPearson said:


> Like the school system is going to teach gayness and turn all our youth gay
> 
> And yes, you are stopping them from living their lives by denying them the right to marriage



denying them the right to marriage is not stopping them from living their lives. LOL. 

I'm not worried about the school systems teaching all of the youth to be gay. I don't like the school system saying what is morally acceptable. That is not their job. Math, English, History. stick to those things


----------



## NeilPearson (Oct 28, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> denying them the right to marriage is not stopping them from living their lives. LOL.
> 
> I'm not worried about the school systems teaching all of the youth to be gay. I don't like the school system saying what is morally acceptable. That is not their job. Math, English, History. stick to those things



You wouldn't consider it interferring with your life if someone told you that you were not allowed to marry?

I do agree though, school shouldn't address what is morally acceptable either way.  They should just give facts.


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 28, 2008)

NeilPearson said:


> You wouldn't consider it interferring with your life if someone told you that you were not allowed to marry?
> 
> I do agree though, school shouldn't address what is morally acceptable either way.  They should just give facts.



lets clarify here a bit. are we talking about marriage itself or the rights associated with marriage? The government has the right to legislate marriage. I have no complaint with a man giving POA to another man, or making him executor in his will.


----------



## KelJu (Oct 28, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> really? it doesn't? the government putting their stamp of approval on this?  how will it be taught in schools, or incorporated into sex ed classes? this is not a question of being bigoted or something like that. people have the right to pass laws determining the type of society they wish to live in. thats whats happening. if the people want to allow gay marriage then a law should be passed. legislation. isn't that what this is all about? asking my government not to recognize gay marriage is not pushing my values onto anyone. I'm not stopping anyone from living their lives




Passing a law banning gay marriage doesn't change anything about the type of society we live in expect for whether we are a society that accepts and loves each other, or a society that practices discrimination, prejudice and hate towards those that are different than us. But thyen again, we already know we are a nation of bickering assholes. 

Gay people do not stop being gay just because you tell them they can't be recognized as a legal binding of two people. All you do is insult them and make them feel like they are not part of the society. 

It really amazes the hell out of me how much love and compassion my gay friends have towards the same people that would judge and discriminate against them. 

As far as sex education goes, Jesus fucking Christ! The kids aren't so stupid and fragile. Half of them will be fucking like rabbits at 15. You think that learning about the existence of gays and the fact that gay people have sex is really going ot have any affect on them? 

Its not like Little Johnny is going to hear about gay marriage in sex ed class and decide that we just can't wait to go get fucked in the ass all of a sudden. It doesn't work that way. These kid's sexual identity is usually set by the time they hit puberty if they are allowed to express it. It is the sexually repressed religious kids that always end up getting fucked up psychologically. 

I couldn't even imagine how hard that shit would be. One of my gay friends told me about her life, and I just felt bad for the girl. Her asshole religious family won't talk to her since she came out of the closet. Her description of her life seemed a lot to me like a Jew being born to a family of Nazis. 

I think the a bigger problem than what to tell the kids in sex ed is how to teach a religious fanatic how to love their gay child.


----------



## min0 lee (Oct 28, 2008)




----------



## bio-chem (Oct 28, 2008)

The Divine Institution of Marriage - LDS Newsroom


----------



## KelJu (Oct 28, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> The Divine Institution of Marriage - LDS Newsroom



Not only is that article factually wrong, but they are bringing Adam and Eve into the debate. 

Also, I refuse to debate anything that includes the Bible. The Bible has no scientific relevance. It is a book of metaphors and tall tales translated and manipulated by over a dozen Kings each time changed to suit the purposes of that King in power. 

So, I conclude with a clip from Lewis Black and his take on evolution.






YouTube Video


----------



## NeilPearson (Oct 28, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> The Divine Institution of Marriage - LDS Newsroom



Blah, blah, blah... the Divine Institution of Marriage... It's only divine if you buy into that definition.  For many people marriage is nothing more than a legal contract.


----------



## NeilPearson (Oct 28, 2008)

The article claims that same sex marriages are a threat to marriage.

Exactly how does two guys getting married threaten straight marriages?


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 28, 2008)

NeilPearson said:


> Blah, blah, blah... the Divine Institution of Marriage... It's only divine if you buy into that definition.  For many people marriage is nothing more than a legal contract.



agreed. and for many it is a divine institution. the definition is the argument. thats why we are having this discussion


----------



## NeilPearson (Oct 28, 2008)

"Strong, stable families, headed by a father and mother, are the anchor of civilized society. When marriage is undermined by gender confusion and by distortions of its God-given meaning, the rising generation of children and youth will find it increasingly difficult to develop their natural identity as a man or a woman. Some will find it more difficult to engage in wholesome courtships, form stable marriages, and raise yet another generation imbued with moral strength and purpose."

... what a bunch of bullshit.  Oh no, little Billy heard that gay people can get married.  That is going to cause him to have unwholesome courtships, an instable marriage and he won't be able to raise his children properly. lol


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 28, 2008)

NeilPearson said:


> The article claims that same sex marriages are a threat to marriage.
> 
> Exactly how does two guys getting married threaten straight marriages?



the article addresses that


----------



## NeilPearson (Oct 28, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> agreed. and for many it is a divine institution. the definition is the argument. thats why we are having this discussion



Fine, have your divine institution and let the gays have their legal contract.

What's the problem?


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 28, 2008)

NeilPearson said:


> "Strong, stable families, headed by a father and mother, are the anchor of civilized society. When marriage is undermined by gender confusion and by distortions of its God-given meaning, the rising generation of children and youth will find it increasingly difficult to develop their natural identity as a man or a woman. Some will find it more difficult to engage in wholesome courtships, form stable marriages, and raise yet another generation imbued with moral strength and purpose."
> 
> ... what a bunch of bullshit.  Oh no, little Billy heard that gay people can get married.  That is going to cause him to have unwholesome courtships, an instable marriage and he won't be able to raise his children properly. lol



are we not seeing more and more cases of gender confusion in the US? i think it is safe to say that more and more that paragraph is being shown to be true


----------



## KelJu (Oct 28, 2008)

NeilPearson said:


> The article claims that same sex marriages are a threat to marriage.
> 
> Exactly how does two guys getting married threaten straight marriages?



Well, because they don't want the kids thinking anything other than their  programming. they don;t want their kids to see that there is another accepted way to live their lives. If you see other people living their lives happily and you realize the stuff your parents taught you was bullshit, you might decide to jump ship.


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 28, 2008)

KelJu said:


> Well, because they don't want the kids thinking anything other than their  programming. they don;t want their kids to see that there is another accepted way to live their lives. If you see other people living their lives happily and you realize the stuff your parents taught you was bullshit, you might decide to jump ship.



thats bogus. the whole programming argument is retarded. this law is in no way about hiding homosexuality


----------



## NeilPearson (Oct 28, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> the article addresses that



Well I believe that people that follow religion are fools and undermine society by raising a generation of people that don't think logically.  I believe this hurts society as a whole.  This affects my right to live in a society where people are logical.

I don't want society to be the way you want to shape it.  I think the world would be much better off without religion of any kind.

I don't try and take away their religious rights though.  I don't have to agree with them but I do have to respect them enough to allow them to make their own mistakes no matter how damaging I feel it is to society.


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 28, 2008)

NeilPearson said:


> Well I believe that people that follow religion are fools and undermine society by raising a generation of people that don't think logically.  I believe this hurts society as a whole.  This affects my right to live in a society where people are logical.
> 
> I don't want society to be the way you want to shape it.  I think the world would be much better off without religion of any kind.
> 
> I don't try and take away their religious rights though.  I don't have to agree with them but I do have to respect them enough to allow them to make their own mistakes no matter how damaging I feel it is to society.



you do see the flaw in your own argument, don't you?


----------



## NeilPearson (Oct 28, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> are we not seeing more and more cases of gender confusion in the US? i think it is safe to say that more and more that paragraph is being shown to be true



I don't think so.  I think more people are just more open to admitting it now.  They have always been there and in the same numbers as today.  The only difference is they aren't hiding in the closet anymore.


----------



## KelJu (Oct 28, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> thats bogus. the whole programming argument is retarded. this law is in no way about hiding homosexuality



The programming argument is a lot more sound than anything in the Bible.


----------



## NeilPearson (Oct 28, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> you do see the flaw in your own argument, don't you?



nope


----------



## maniclion (Oct 28, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> really? it doesn't? the government putting their stamp of approval on this?  how will it be taught in schools, or incorporated into sex ed classes? this is not a question of being bigoted or something like that. people have the right to pass laws determining the type of society they wish to live in. thats whats happening. if the people want to allow gay marriage then a law should be passed. legislation. isn't that what this is all about? asking my government not to recognize gay marriage is not pushing my values onto anyone. I'm not stopping anyone from living their lives


How do we teach children about the man with 10 wives in Utah isn't marriage between a man and "a" woman?  Shouldn"t the Mormon's get themselves in check before they start trying to make rules about what constitutes a marriage?  Same with all these others who can't even keep a heterosexual marriage together and they want to claim gay's would cause some kind of rift that would tear marriage apart isn't divorce a pretty large rift?  What's the point of marriage if nearly half don't even honor the words till death do us part?  Marriage is already a joke might as well let gay couples in on it....


----------



## NeilPearson (Oct 28, 2008)

I think marriage should be between a man, a woman and a bunch of other girls


----------



## Built (Oct 28, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> I love the comparison to slavery. It is absolutely nothing alike.



Well hang on ... slavery was about inequality, right? 

So is this. You're saying that a monogamous male-female couple may wed, but a monogamous same-sex couple may not. 

Marriage, in addition to the pleasure and irritation of sharing one's life with that special someone you wish to annoy with your idiosyncrasies for the rest of your life, is also a financial and legal arrangement. Married couples get tax advantages, medical and dental benefits, survivors' pensions... and also the legal right to be considered family in the event of say hospitalization or adoption. 

Not being allowed to marry - when strait couples are -constitutes a rather gross inequity in this regard. 

Or am I missing something, biochem?


----------



## Big Smoothy (Oct 28, 2008)

lnvanry said:


> Its no more a cult than any other organized religion...there are varying degrees of practice and interpretation Smoothy.  I've met some off the wall Mormons before...and some off the wall Catholics and Protestants as well.
> 
> What makes you think every Mormon member is cult practitioner?



Joseph Smith was not a profit.  He was a fraud.

The mysterious gold plates that disappeared.
The "Salamander letter."
The fake angel Moroni.


Mormonism is a sick, crock.


----------



## lnvanry (Oct 28, 2008)

Big Smoothy said:


> [/b]Joseph Smith was not a profit.*  He was a fraud.
> 
> The mysterious gold plates that disappeared.
> The "Salamander letter."
> ...


*

Neither was Moses, Jesus, and Mohammad either in my book....anyone who says they are sent by God comes off as a little schizophrenic to me.

Mormonism isn't any weirder than the belief that wine and bread literately transfuse into the blood and body of a man who has been dead for over 2000years...or a man who parted a sea...or the idea that you will be in heaven with 72 virgins.

see where I'm going with this?*


----------



## min0 lee (Oct 28, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> I love the comparison to slavery. It is absolutely nothing alike.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Oct 28, 2008)

lnvanry said:


> Neither was Moses, Jesus, and Mohammad either in my book....anyone who says they are sent by God comes off as a little schizophrenic to me.
> 
> Mormonism isn't any weirder than the belief that wine and bread literately transfuse into the blood and body of a man who has been dead for over 2000years...or a man who parted a sea...or the idea that you will be in heaven with 72 virgins.
> 
> see where I'm going with this?



I believe that all of the organized religions were made by humans.  

While living, we humans are not to know what happens after death, if anything.

We are not meant to know, IMO.  Because.....we don't know.

We can only speculate.


----------



## PreMier (Oct 28, 2008)

wow, what a thread.. typical of min0 to start some shit like this 

the fact is, people have their beliefs and they have the right to them.  ever since people have been on earth, they have worshiped a higher being.  why?

is it a coincidence that so many people believe that there is something greater out there?  that something greater put us here for a purpose?  

there are also a lot of people that dont believe, or dont know.. and thats fine.  but when it comes to the grand scheme of things, its nice to think we will end up in a better place, and be with family.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Oct 28, 2008)

PreMier said:


> wow, what a thread.. typical of min0 to start some shit like this
> 
> the fact is, people have their beliefs and they have the right to them.  ever since people have been on earth, they have worshiped a higher being.  why?
> 
> ...



Hence the Sun god and gods.  Ra, Isis, Osiris, Greek gods, Roman god, Aztec god, animistic gods and now the 4 major religions of the world with many off-shoots and deonominations, plus a few other minor ones.


----------



## NeilPearson (Oct 28, 2008)

lnvanry said:


> Neither was Moses, Jesus, and Mohammad either in my book....anyone who says they are sent by God comes off as a little schizophrenic to me.
> 
> Mormonism isn't any weirder than the belief that wine and bread literately transfuse into the blood and body of a man who has been dead for over 2000years...or a man who parted a sea...or the idea that you will be in heaven with 72 virgins.
> 
> see where I'm going with this?



I agree... I think they are all just as retarded.  I'm not just against Mormonism.  I think all religion is dumb


----------



## NeilPearson (Oct 28, 2008)

PreMier said:


> wow, what a thread.. typical of min0 to start some shit like this
> 
> the fact is, people have their beliefs and they have the right to them.  *ever since people have been on earth, they have worshiped a higher being.  why?*
> is it a coincidence that so many people believe that there is something greater out there?  that something greater put us here for a purpose?
> ...



I think you answered your own question


----------



## mcguin (Oct 29, 2008)

this is why religion is the devil...look how many wars religion has started.  As long as there is religion there will be weak people in this world who dont think based upon reason and common sense but rather think based upon what some made up characters told them thousands of years ago.  And slavery and anti gay marriage is the same exact thing.  I'm a die hard republican if there was one, and dont leave my parties ways for the most part, but gay marriage is one issue that comes that makes me want to spit on those righty holy rollers who use the constitution as a moral front to enforce their religious ways!  I dont care if your mormon or catholic or hindu, but by putting your beliefs and personal morals into a real bible such as the constitution, well thats pretty much as low as it gets.

P.S.- Breaking news, gay marriage is contagious!!! (headlines)-"national curfew is now in affect, please keep all your children and family members inside, as the gays are comming out!!!  They might poison your children and turn them gay!!!"  

Come on now, is this what your really want to see in the newspapers in the next decade, cause thats what this country is coming to, nothing but holy roller bigots legislating our lives!


----------



## tucker01 (Oct 29, 2008)

I am not religious.... but you religion haters are just as fucked up.

It has more to do with fucked up low life ignorant people, then the impact relgion has.


----------



## MCx2 (Oct 29, 2008)

The real problem isn't the religions themselves, it's the people that use religion as a vessel for their ignorance. Like Built said, marriage is a financial and legal arrangement. Religion and morals should not be taught in school I agree with that, but in addition; religion should also not dictate the stipulations of any legal contract (marriage in this case).


----------



## DOMS (Oct 29, 2008)

KelJu said:


> A gay couple that you will never meet somewhere in a town you will never go to having the right to be legally married does not qualify as "pushing values" onto you.
> 
> However, to legally ban that gay couple from being married pushes your values onto them in the most powerful way.



See, this is where you're full of shit.  Do you even know what this whole issue is about?  At the very least, the religious people don't want to perform marriages for gays, but the gays want to force them to do it.  There's nothing to stop gays from getting married in any organization that'll do it for them. But that's not good enough, they have to _*force* their way_ on others.

I've made it clear over the years that I'm A-okay with gays, but the current trend of gays (and shit-hole organizations like the ACLU) suing religious institutions who refuse to perform a ceremony for them isn't making any friends.

I'm not all that religious, but that's bull-fucking-shit.


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 29, 2008)

mcguin said:


> this is why religion is the devil...



LOL. If there is a devil then there is also a God. no doubt religion has been used for negative things in the past. It has also done a lot of good. The very argument of a devil necessitates a God.


----------



## mcguin (Oct 29, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> LOL. If there is a devil then there is also a God. no doubt religion has been used for negative things in the past. It has also done a lot of good. The very argument of a devil necessitates a God.



i used the devil in an adjective way.  I call people I dont like the devil...my using the phrase devil in such sentences actually originated after watching certain movies, its comedical and shouldnt be taken in a sense where I'm comparing religion to the devil, that obviously wouldnt make any sense.


----------



## mcguin (Oct 29, 2008)

DOMS said:


> See, this is where you're full of shit.  Do you even know what this whole issue is about?  At the very least, the religious people don't want to perform marriages for gays, but the gays want to force them to do it.  There's nothing to stop gays from getting married in any organization that'll do it for them. But that's not good enough, they have to _*force* their way_ on others.
> 
> I've made it clear over the years that I'm A-okay with gays, but the current trend of gays (and shit-hole organizations like the ACLU) suing religious institutions who refuse to perform a ceremony for them isn't making any friends.
> 
> I'm not all that religious, but that's bull-fucking-shit.



and this might be true, but the problems I am seeing is that a large portion of our politicians whether in the house of reps or just local freeholders all have an agenda to put the illegalization of gay marriage in the constitution.  Dont use your public duty job to preach your own likes and dislikes.  There needs to be a line drawn as to what our legislators are legislating...there are bigger problems in the country than poor gay people being told they can't get married because its against the "bible" not the law.  this is called discrimination.


----------



## DOMS (Oct 29, 2008)

mcguin said:


> and this might be true, but the problems I am seeing is that a large portion of our politicians whether in the house of reps or just local freeholders all have an agenda to put the illegalization of gay marriage in the constitution.  Dont use your public duty job to preach your own likes and dislikes.  There needs to be a line drawn as to what our legislators are legislating...there are bigger problems in the country than poor gay people being told they can't get married because its against the "bible" not the law.  this is called discrimination.



There's nothing "might" about it.

Again, this bill is about whether gays can marry or not, it's about gays saying that religious institutions _*must *_perform the ceremony.

Bullshit.


----------



## tucker01 (Oct 29, 2008)

are you ok with a civil union?


----------



## PreMier (Oct 29, 2008)

mcguin said:


> and this might be true, but the problems I am seeing is that a large portion of our politicians whether in the house of reps or just local freeholders all have an agenda to put the illegalization of gay marriage in the constitution.  Dont use your public duty job to preach your own likes and dislikes.  There needs to be a line drawn as to what our legislators are legislating...there are bigger problems in the country than poor gay people being told they can't get married because its against the "bible" not the law.  *this is called discrimination.*



not when they want a religious institution that doesnt believe in gay marriage to marry them.


----------



## mcguin (Oct 29, 2008)

PreMier said:


> not when they want a religious institution that doesnt believe in gay marriage to marry them.



I'm sorry, the article thats posted didnt specify about gay sbeing married in their own church or in a town hall, from what I initially read it was a proposition to prevent gays from being married and using the term marriage, I guess I have no argument if what your saying is the case.


----------



## brogers (Oct 29, 2008)

Gays are not being denied any rights.  I, as a man, can marry a woman, and the state will recognize it.  A gay man can marry a woman, and the state will recognize it.  Same goes for females.  No right is being denied here.  The entire argument is a scam.  "Marry whomever I choose" is garbage.  It's no longer marriage if it is man-man, woman-woman.  People are sick of gays trying to encroach upon pillars of society.

You can provide power of attorney to, and write your will to favor your gay partner already.  No rights are denied.  I'm sick of hearing people claim the deviants need to have special laws to cater to their particular desires.


----------



## tucker01 (Oct 29, 2008)

brogers said:


> Gays are not being denied any rights.  I, as a man, can marry a woman, and the state will recognize it.  A gay man can marry a woman, and the state will recognize it.  Same goes for females.  No right is being denied here.  The entire argument is a scam.  "Marry whomever I choose" is garbage.  It's no longer marriage if it is man-man, woman-woman.  People are sick of gays trying to encroach upon pillars of society.
> 
> You can provide power of attorney to, and write your will to favor your gay partner already.  No rights are denied.  I'm sick of hearing people claim the deviants need to have special laws to cater to their particular desires.



Let's get blacks back in the cotton fields as well.


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 29, 2008)

IainDaniel said:


> Let's get blacks back in the cotton fields as well.



these two things are nothing alike.


----------



## mcguin (Oct 29, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> these two things are nothing alike.



if what your saying is that gays not being allowed to marry is different from slavery, can you please explain?


----------



## DOMS (Oct 29, 2008)

IainDaniel said:


> are you ok with a civil union?



I'm mixed on the topic.

I think that they should be able to suffer just as much as any straight person, but I also think that redefining the basic tenets of society is a Pandora's Box.


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 29, 2008)

mcguin said:


> if what your saying is that gays not being allowed to marry is different from slavery, can you please explain?



meaning i don't think comparing slavery to gay marriage is a valid comparison. this is not ownership of another being here. I find it so completely different that I am having trouble even comprehending how it is looked at as similar.


----------



## DOMS (Oct 29, 2008)

mcguin said:


> if what your saying is that gays not being allowed to marry is different from slavery, can you please explain?



Wow.


----------



## tucker01 (Oct 29, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> meaning i don't think comparing slavery to gay marriage is a valid comparison. this is not ownership of another being here. I find it so completely different that I am having trouble even comprehending how it is looked at as similar.



There is a difference in comparing the civil rights struggle and equating the two.

My point was more towards brogers calling gay actions deviant, somewhere along the same line as blacks were considered.


----------



## mcguin (Oct 29, 2008)

slavery=depriving african americans their rights as humans to be free
not allowing gay marriage=depriving people based on their sexuality to be free


----------



## tucker01 (Oct 29, 2008)

DOMS said:


> I'm mixed on the topic.
> 
> I think that they should be able to suffer just as much as any straight person, but I also think that redefining the basic tenets of society is a Pandora's Box.




The "basic tennents" of society also prevented women from working and voting, and draws upon the civil rights struggle the blacks had against the "basic tennents"


----------



## mcguin (Oct 29, 2008)

IainDaniel said:


> The "basic tennents" of society also prevented women from working and voting, and draws upon the civil rights struggle the blacks had against the "basic tennents"



excellent point.


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 29, 2008)

IainDaniel said:


> The "basic tennents" of society also prevented women from working and voting, and draws upon the civil rights struggle the blacks had against the "basic tennents"



hence the 13th 14th and 15th amendments. and gays are allowed to vote.


----------



## tucker01 (Oct 29, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> hence the 13th 14th and 15th amendments. and gays are allowed to vote.


  again i am not EQUATING the two.... I am drawing COMPARISONS.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Oct 29, 2008)

DOMS said:


> See, this is where you're full of shit.  Do you even know what this whole issue is about?  At the very least, the religious people don't want to perform marriages for gays, but the gays want to force them to do it.  There's nothing to stop gays from getting married in any organization that'll do it for them. But that's not good enough, they have to _*force* their way_ on others.
> 
> I've made it clear over the years that I'm A-okay with gays, but the current trend of gays (and shit-hole organizations like the ACLU) suing religious institutions who refuse to perform a ceremony for them isn't making any friends.
> 
> I'm not all that religious, but that's bull-fucking-shit.



This is NOT the point.  It's not about the "religious" ceremony acceptance.

That is a church/temple/synagogue issue.

The "gay marriage" is a legal issue.  Legal recognition, and the legal benefits that are applicable.


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 29, 2008)

mcguin said:


> slavery=depriving african americans their rights as humans to be free
> not allowing gay marriage=depriving people based on their sexuality to be free



they are not denied freedom. are you kidding me?


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 29, 2008)

Big Smoothy said:


> This is NOT the point.  It's not about the "religious" ceremony acceptance.
> 
> That is a church/temple/synagogue issue.
> 
> The "gay marriage" is a legal issue.  Legal recognition, and the legal benefits that are applicable.



lets talk a little bit about legal recognition then. what legal benefits are being denied


----------



## tucker01 (Oct 29, 2008)

Built said:


> Well hang on ... slavery was about inequality, right?
> 
> So is this. You're saying that a monogamous male-female couple may wed, but a monogamous same-sex couple may not.
> 
> ...



bump


----------



## Dale Mabry (Oct 29, 2008)

What a nice topic we have going here.  Personally, I don't give a crap what other people do, I am too busy over here.  If 2 dudes want to plow each other and invest into the sham that is marriage, I wish them the best.  If a chick makes a mistake and takes a pill the next day to get rid of the future problem, I don't care, I don't believe life starts at conception.  I think where we are at, and what Bio-chem is trying to say, and I agree, is that these are not rights guaranteed to people.  We elect officials to do what we believe is right to shape our society, this is the way it was always done.  Some people are on one side, some people are on another, and as history plays out, we find out how we, as a society, feel about certain topics.  If gay marriage is meant to be it will be legislated, if not it won't.

I do not follow organized religion, I find much more credible evidence in the fossil record than a book written by someone I have never known, nor never seen.  But, stating that those who follow religion are foolish would insinuate that I know the answer, which I don't, and no one does.  Again, I apply the "Who gives a shit?" rule


----------



## tucker01 (Oct 29, 2008)

fine and dandy to apply a who gives a shit rule when it doesn't really have any impact on you.

Suppose a brother or sister or family member was gay? would that change your stance?

And I agree with your legislative POV. It will only be a matter of time


----------



## DOMS (Oct 29, 2008)

IainDaniel said:


> The "basic tennents" of society also prevented women from working and voting, and draws upon the civil rights struggle the blacks had against the "basic tennents"



Fair enough, tenant wasn't the correct word.  "Institution" would be the word that I'm looking for.

My point stands.


----------



## brogers (Oct 29, 2008)

IainDaniel said:


> Let's get blacks back in the cotton fields as well.



Absurd reply.  It doesn't address at all what I said, which is the underlying truth of the matter:  No rights are being denied to gay people, period.  They have the exact same rights I do, or any other person does.  Tell me where I am wrong.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Oct 29, 2008)

IainDaniel said:


> fine and dandy to apply a who gives a shit rule when it doesn't really have any impact on you.
> 
> Suppose a brother or sister or family member was gay? would that change your stance?
> 
> And I agree with your legislative POV. It will only be a matter of time



I have a gay uncle, and a few gay friends.  I want them to be able to marry, and believe they will.  My uncle went the civil union route up in VT.

The "Who Gives a Shit?" rule, by my definition, means that if you want to do something, and it has no direct impact on my life (i.e., you are not stabbing me or someone I know or dramatically changing my quality of life), you should be able to do it.  I don't mean who gives a shit as in, your problem, not mine.


----------



## MCx2 (Oct 29, 2008)

brogers said:


> Absurd reply.  It doesn't address at all what I said, which is the underlying truth of the matter:  No rights are being denied to gay people, period.  They have the exact same rights I do, or any other person does.  Tell me where I am wrong.



Built actually addressed that on the last page, but everyone seemed to miss that post. 



> Married couples get tax advantages, medical and dental benefits, survivors' pensions... and also the legal right to be considered family in the event of say hospitalization or adoption.


----------



## tucker01 (Oct 29, 2008)

Some of the benefits of marriage



> *According to a report given to the Office of the General Counsel of the U.S. General Accounting Office, here are a few of the 1,138 benefits the United States government provides to legally married couples:*
> 
> 
> Access to Military Stores
> ...


----------



## mcguin (Oct 29, 2008)

hea's a topic- hamburgers- there not made out of ham, so why give it that name?  okay now talk amongst yourselves!


----------



## brogers (Oct 29, 2008)

ReproMan said:


> Built actually addressed that on the last page, but everyone seemed to miss that post.



Gay people can marry, I addressed it already.  A gay man can marry a woman.  A gay woman can marry a man.  It is the exact same for me.  As a man, I can marry a woman.

The advantages of marriage are available to them, should they choose to do so.


----------



## Built (Oct 29, 2008)

brogers said:


> Gay people can marry, I addressed it already.  A gay man can marry a woman.  A gay woman can marry a man.  It is the exact same for me.  As a man, I can marry a woman.
> 
> The advantages of marriage are available to them, should they choose to do so.



Yep, and straits can marry people with whom they have no intention of partnering. It's a common immigration ploy from what I understand. It's also illegal. 

Besides, without consummating the act, it's hardly what I'd call a marriage. 

Ya' gotta admit, brogers, it's a bit of an odd argument. I mean, would anyone - gay or strait - want to marry someone he or she didn't love?

biochem, I'm still interested in your reply to my argument. In particular, the analogy to certain aspects of slavery. 

For example, it is my understanding that at one point, Blacks were not allowed to marry Whites in the USA, is this not correct? Also, I seem to recall the LDS used to have a policy regarding Black membership in the Church, but I admit my knowledge in this area is scatty at best. I realize that this, like plural marriage, is no longer part of the Mormon faith. I bring it up to demonstrate that just because something has "always been this way" doesn't mean it's always been right. My feeling is that the illegality of gay marriage is an example of one of these historical wrongs that needed to be righted.


----------



## brogers (Oct 29, 2008)

Built said:


> Yep, and straits can marry people with whom they have no intention of partnering. It's a common immigration ploy from what I understand. It's also illegal.
> 
> Besides, without consummating the act, it's hardly what I'd call a marriage.
> 
> ...



People argue "equal protection under law."  My question is:  What protection is being denied to a gay person?


----------



## Built (Oct 29, 2008)

The right to marry a life partner.


----------



## KelJu (Oct 29, 2008)

DOMS said:


> See, this is where you're full of shit.  Do you even know what this whole issue is about?  At the very least, the religious people don't want to perform marriages for gays, but the gays want to force them to do it.  There's nothing to stop gays from getting married in any organization that'll do it for them. But that's not good enough, they have to _*force* their way_ on others.
> 
> I've made it clear over the years that I'm A-okay with gays, but the current trend of gays (and shit-hole organizations like the ACLU) suing religious institutions who refuse to perform a ceremony for them isn't making any friends.
> 
> I'm not all that religious, but that's bull-fucking-shit.




Slow down there Haus. Where did you get that shit from? Not my post. I don't even remotely promote forcing a church to marry gays.  I am talking about the right of gays to receive the legal recognition by the state that their union is a legal one, and all the benefits that go along with it. 

I don't agree with 99% of anything the ACLU has ever done. I am against the ACLU as much as you are. 


If you want to attack my arguments, fine, but don't try and strawman me.


----------



## KelJu (Oct 29, 2008)

brogers said:


> People argue "equal protection under law."  My question is:  What protection is being denied to a gay person?



I wouldn't expect a heartless piece of shit like you to even remotely understand anything in this thread.


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 29, 2008)

Built said:


> biochem, I'm still interested in your reply to my argument. In particular, the analogy to certain aspects of slavery.
> 
> For example, it is my understanding that at one point, Blacks were not allowed to marry Whites in the USA, is this not correct? Also, I seem to recall the LDS used to have a policy regarding Black membership in the Church, but I admit my knowledge in this area is scatty at best. I realize that this, like plural marriage, is no longer part of the Mormon faith. I bring it up to demonstrate that just because something has "always been this way" doesn't mean it's always been right. My feeling is that the illegality of gay marriage is an example of one of these historical wrongs that needed to be righted.



Unlike the right to own property the right to marriage is not a universal one. The states posses the right to regulate marriage as well as to pass laws for the betterment of society as decided by the voice of the people. The voice of the people is being determined right now. I think this is needed as it is not the courts dictating but legislation determining this issue. 

As to the reason why I believe society will be better off please refer to the article I posted. I will never be able to explain it as well as that article.

For the rest of your post I think we are getting a little off topic to the original point of the topic, but that is almost to be expected. I will have to go back and re-read your posts to find the one specifically regarding the comparison to racism. sorry i don't have time at the moment.

As to any of the LDS faiths past policies or doctrines I would be happy to answer any questions about them specifically, but I'm not really of the belief that this is the thread for that.

And as DOMS has pointed out. This is very much a Pandoras box. what is next? pedophiles and polygamy come to mind as the next groups to be clamoring for the right to marriage. I would love to see someone here argue gays should have this right, but polygamists should not. (as a clarification I do not support either)


----------



## tucker01 (Oct 29, 2008)

comparing pedophiles to gay rights is just ohhhh a little absurd


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 29, 2008)

IainDaniel said:


> comparing pedophiles to gay rights is just ohhhh a little absurd



You think? of course im using a wild example. it highlights the point of the argument. the point is what is next? Different states have different laws pertaining to right of consent. meaning the line is arbitrary. so why not 16, or 15, 14, 13, 12....The point is a moral judgment is required in these laws. Moral reasoning must be used in the execution of and basis for our laws. whether that be based on a personal belief coming from within, from ones upbringing, or from religious docrine.


----------



## tucker01 (Oct 29, 2008)

comparing decisions between consenting adults....


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 29, 2008)

IainDaniel said:


> comparing decisions between consenting adults....



you're making a moral judgment. what are you basing it on? what do you think the age of consent should be?


----------



## tucker01 (Oct 29, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> you're making a moral judgment. what are you basing it on? what do you think the age of consent should be?




so basically straight people are the ultimate.


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 29, 2008)

IainDaniel said:


> so basically straight people are the ultimate.



my point is morality is used in our laws. you are saying yes to one thing and no to another. I am doing the same thing. You don't like where i draw the line in the sand. thats fine. people disagree with me all of the time. Im sure there are people on the other side of you saying where you draw the line is wrong.

Strait people have problems with morality as well. Divorce, and cheating are all well documented among strait people. but that doesn't mean we throw open the doors.


----------



## KelJu (Oct 29, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> Unlike the right to own property the right to marriage is not a universal one. The states posses the right to regulate marriage as well as to pass laws for the betterment of society as decided by the voice of the people. The voice of the people is being determined right now. I think this is needed as it is not the courts dictating but legislation determining this issue.
> 
> As to the reason why I believe society will be better off please refer to the article I posted. I will never be able to explain it as well as that article.
> 
> ...





Your right! How could I have not seen this. If we let gays get married today, weeks later we will be letting little Susy the 8 year old marry her pedophile uncle. How could I be so careless. We must save little suzy. 

I mean after all, isn't about the children?


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 29, 2008)

KelJu said:


> Your right! How could I have not seen this. If we let gays get married today, weeks later we will be letting little Susy the 8 year old marry her pedophile uncle. How could I be so careless. We must save little suzy.
> 
> I mean after all, isn't about the children?



c'mon kelju. i've already stated that I'm using a wild example to prove a point. you don't like Christianity voting for laws based on their version of morality. But isn't there also someone on the other side of you saying that they don't like your version of morality? 

If you don't like the pedophile argument lets go with polygamy. why shouldn't consenting adults be allowed to marry more than one person? Gay/Strait doesn't matter. polygyny or polyandry?


----------



## NeilPearson (Oct 29, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> c'mon kelju. i've already stated that I'm using a wild example to prove a point. you don't like Christianity voting for laws based on their version of morality. But isn't there also someone on the other side of you saying that they don't like your version of morality?
> 
> If you don't like the pedophile argument lets go with polygamy. why shouldn't consenting adults be allowed to marry more than one person? Gay/Strait doesn't matter. polygyny or polyandry?



I could care less if consenting adults want to practice polygamy.... I say for it


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 29, 2008)

NeilPearson said:


> I could care less if consenting adults want to practice polygamy.... I say for it



We already know that you consider marriage little more than a business transaction.


----------



## Built (Oct 29, 2008)

Polygamy doesn't trouble ME personally, but there are tremendous financial implications to its practice - for example, how would an insurance co-pay like it if I had three husbands putting in dental claims, or if they outlive me, three survivors claiming pension benefits? 

In the current situation, we are discussing the marriage between two humans. biochem, what *personally *is your objection to allowing same-sex unions to be defined under this paradigm?


----------



## tucker01 (Oct 29, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> my point is morality is used in our laws. you are saying yes to one thing and no to another. I am doing the same thing. You don't like where i draw the line in the sand. thats fine. people disagree with me all of the time. Im sure there are people on the other side of you saying where you draw the line is wrong.
> 
> Strait people have problems with morality as well. Divorce, and cheating are all well documented among strait people. but that doesn't mean we throw open the doors.



no i get your point.  i am just having fun


----------



## PreMier (Oct 29, 2008)

Built said:


> In the current situation, we are discussing the marriage between two humans. biochem, what *personally *is your objection to allowing same-sex unions to be defined under this paradigm?



this country was founded on a belief in God, and homosexuality is against that (laws of God).


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 29, 2008)

Built said:


> Polygamy doesn't trouble ME personally, but there are tremendous financial implications to its practice - for example, how would an insurance co-pay like it if I had three husbands putting in dental claims, or if they outlive me, three survivors claiming pension benefits?
> 
> In the current situation, we are discussing the marriage between two humans. biochem, what *personally *is your objection to allowing same-sex unions to be defined under this paradigm?



as I've said many times it is a moral one. it is one in which i believe to be detrimental to society. the next question of course is how is it detrimental? for that i can once again only refer someone to the article I posted. I find it explains it in a clear language I am incapable of.


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 29, 2008)

IainDaniel said:


> no i get your point.  i am just having fun



oh, well crap. this is something im not used to.


----------



## ronmexico29 (Oct 29, 2008)

some good debate on this thread.


----------



## Built (Oct 29, 2008)

PreMier said:


> this country was founded on a belief in God, and homosexuality is against that (laws of God).



Only for men, actually. Female homosexuals are conspicuous in their absence in scripture.

So I guess same-sex marriage is okay between two women, then? 

And is it still okay to sell female children into sex-slavery, or did God cancel that part of the bible?



			
				God? (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT) said:
			
		

> When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment.


----------



## brogers (Oct 29, 2008)

Built said:


> The right to marry a life partner.



This is not a right that I have.  Thus, it is not unfairly denied to anyone.  I am unable to marry another man.  The law is being applied equally.

Your argument has no basis in law, whatsoever.


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 29, 2008)

Built said:


> Only for men, actually. Female homosexuals are conspicuous in their absence in scripture.
> 
> So I guess same-sex marriage is okay between two women, then?
> 
> And is it still okay to sell female children into sex-slavery, or did God cancel that part of the bible?



Only if they are cute and post it on the internet

in all seriousness is this is really the path you want to go down? your getting seriously off topic here. aguing the bible with people who use and believe it? I wouldn't presume to quote the koran to a muslim just because ive read it.

that scripture you posted didn't say anything about sex slavery.


----------



## KelJu (Oct 29, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> c'mon kelju. i've already stated that I'm using a wild example to prove a point. you don't like Christianity voting for laws based on their version of morality. But isn't there also someone on the other side of you saying that they don't like your version of morality?
> 
> If you don't like the pedophile argument lets go with polygamy. why shouldn't consenting adults be allowed to marry more than one person? Gay/Strait doesn't matter. polygyny or polyandry?



They should. I don't have a problem with polygamy. Again, that is about other people's relationships, not mine. As long as the people involved are consenting, key word being "consenting", I don't give a shit. 

Polygamy has historically been a huge problem because women didn't have rights. Well times have changed. Women have the same freedoms as men do. So, if 10 women want to marry one guy, then go for it. If he can please them all, he is a better man than me. 

Your religion has programmed you to want to control what other people do. even when the things you want to change doesn't hurt anybody.

This all amounts to basic human empathy with compassion. You know? The concept that I wouldn't want somebody doing it to me, so I won't do it to them.  

That is the ONLY FUCKING RULE ON THIS PLANET THAT I FOLLOW!!! I don't follow the law. I could wipe my ass with paper that our laws are written on. I could wipe my ass with the original manuscript of the bible. I don't need a book to tell me how to live or what is right. If you need a book to help you figure out what your morals and ethics are, then you probably have no business telling other people what is right and wrong. 

Do you want somebody telling you who you can and can't marry? Fuck no, man. So, stop doing it to other people.


----------



## Built (Oct 29, 2008)

brogers said:


> This is not a right that I have.  Thus, it is not unfairly denied to anyone.  I am unable to marry another man.  The law is being applied equally.
> 
> Your argument has no basis in law, whatsoever.



So... you're gay, unable to marry your life partner, and this is okay with you.

Got it. I think?


----------



## brogers (Oct 29, 2008)

KelJu said:


> I wouldn't expect a heartless piece of shit like you to even remotely understand anything in this thread.



Good idea.  Say that rather than attempt to make the impossible argument that gays are being unfairly denied any right.


----------



## maniclion (Oct 29, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> If you don't like the pedophile argument lets go with polygamy. why shouldn't consenting adults be allowed to marry more than one person? Gay/Strait doesn't matter. polygyny or polyandry?


Consenting "adult humans" should be allowed to marry if if there are more than two involved.  If a Man thinks he can handle 2 or 3 wives then more power to him, if a woman wants a few extra men around the house then she'd better marry a couple extra women to help with the nagging....I think it's about time we stopped making our policies based on outdated thinking conjoured by teachings of ancient scrolls from a time when people castrated lambs with their teeth......


----------



## Built (Oct 29, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> Only if they are cute and post it on the internet


  Hehehe...  





> in all seriousness is this is really the path you want to go down? your getting seriously off topic here. aguing the bible with people who use and believe it?


 You think I don't? 


> I wouldn't presume to quote the koran to a muslim just because ive read it.
> 
> that scripture you posted didn't say anything about sex slavery.


You're quite right. She could marry her owner's son of her own volition. I'm sure she wouldn't be forced into it under those circumstances.

Slavery is okay with God though, right? For men, 6 years max. For women, forever.


----------



## KelJu (Oct 29, 2008)

brogers said:


> Good idea.  Say that rather than attempt to make the impossible argument that gays are being unfairly denied any right.



Your question so too dumb to compute.


----------



## brogers (Oct 29, 2008)

Built said:


> So... you're gay, unable to marry your life partner, and this is okay with you.
> 
> Got it. I think?



You can marry your "life partner" provided that person is of the opposite sex.  Just as I can.  No right is unfairly denied or unequally applied.

It is perfectly OK with me for a man to be unable to marry another man or woman:woman, you got it.


----------



## brogers (Oct 29, 2008)

KelJu said:


> Your question *so* *too *dumb to compute.



Irony


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 29, 2008)

KelJu said:


> They should. I don't have a problem with polygamy. Again, that is about other people's relationships, not mine. As long as the people involved are consenting, key word being "consenting", I don't give a shit.
> 
> Polygamy has historically been a huge problem because women didn't have rights. Well times have changed. Women have the same freedoms as men do. So, if 10 women want to marry one guy, then go for it. If he can please them all, he is a better man than me.
> 
> ...



you need to chill. you're really starting to get on my nerves with that bull shit programing argument. Even when we disagree i've enjoyed your posts because usually they contain valid points that need to be adressed. at the moment i think you need to go smoke a bowl and come back to regular scheduled programing.

no one here has yet to seriously adress the article i posted. yourself included. if you have an aguement against that then lets talk.


----------



## KelJu (Oct 29, 2008)

brogers said:


> You can marry your "life partner" provided that person is of the opposite sex.  Just as I can.  No right is unfairly denied or unequally applied.
> 
> It is perfectly OK with me for a man to be unable to marry another man or woman:woman, you got it.




Your logic sounds like this.

2 + 5 = 10 as long as 5 really means 8.


----------



## brogers (Oct 29, 2008)

KelJu said:


> Your logic sounds like this.
> 
> 2 + 5 = 10 as long as 5 really means 8.



Thanks genius.  Continue to avoid the basic argument and spout off BS.


----------



## Built (Oct 29, 2008)

brogers said:


> You can marry your "life partner" provided that person is of the opposite sex.  Just as I can.  No right is unfairly denied or unequally applied.


Yes it is, and you just said it: "provided that person is of the opposite sex".   

Unless your idea of a life-partner is someone for whom you have no romantic interest (at which point, my condolences to your betrothed), I don't see what you are getting at.


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 29, 2008)

Built said:


> Hehehe...   You think I don't?
> You're quite right. She could marry her owner's son of her own volition. I'm sure she wouldn't be forced into it under those circumstances.
> 
> Slavery is okay with God though, right? For men, 6 years max. For women, forever.



all right, but before we get started recognise that I don't believe the word of God ended with the bible. I believe God still has guidence to us his children and as such continues to reveal his will to living prophets today as he did in biblical times. because of things like pornography which is an issue today that wasn't 2,000 years ago. God is not silenced.

To begin it's going to be hard to use the old testament or old covenant. when Jesus fulfilled the law of moses and gave us the new testament or new covenant. Jesus gave us the higher law. With new revelation Jesus expects us to follow higher standards now than he did the people of moses.

but this isn't anything new to you. you live and follow the bible. right?


----------



## KelJu (Oct 29, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> you need to chill. you're really starting to get on my nerves with that bull shit programing argument. Even when we disagree i've enjoyed your posts because usually they contain valid points that need to be adressed. at the moment i think you need to go *smoke a bowl and come back to regular scheduled programing*.
> 
> no one here has yet to seriously adress the article i posted. yourself included. if you have an aguement against that then lets talk.



Finally, something we can agree on in this thread. 


If I seem harsh, it is because I have people in my life that I love very much that are being discriminated against. The owner of the business I work for has treated me like a son for the past 5 years. I have learned more about life from him than my own dad. He is hands down, the most giving, forgiving, and compassionate person I have ever met. His life partner is 70. They have been in a monogamous relationship for over 50 years. T

If anybody deserves to be married, they do.


----------



## KelJu (Oct 29, 2008)

brogers said:


> Thanks genius.  Continue to avoid the basic argument and spout off BS.



Bla bla bla. I'm arguing with an emotionless machine. I need to have my head examined.


----------



## KelJu (Oct 29, 2008)

Built said:


> Yes it is, and you just said it: "provided that person is of the opposite sex".
> 
> Unless your idea of a life-partner is someone for whom you have no romantic interest (at which point, my condolences to your betrothed), I don't see what you are getting at.



Brogers doesn't understand because it requires basic human emotions to grasp what life partner means.


----------



## Witchblade (Oct 29, 2008)

Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 29, 2008)

KelJu said:


> Finally, something we can agree on in this thread.
> 
> 
> If I seem harsh, it is because I have people in my life that I love very much that are being discriminated against. The owner of the business I work for has treated me like a son for the past 5 years. I have learned more about life from him than my own dad. He is hands down, the most giving, forgiving, and compassionate person I have ever met. His life partner is 70. They have been in a monogamous relationship for over 50 years. T
> ...



And I'm sure they have experienced quite a few difficulties because of it.

I commend their commitment to each other. that is impressive. What would a marriage certificate do to change their lives?


----------



## Built (Oct 29, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> And I'm sure they have experienced quite a few difficulties because of it.
> 
> I commend their commitment to each other. that is impressive. What would a marriage certificate do to change their lives?



The same things it will do for a strait couple.


----------



## Witchblade (Oct 29, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> And I'm sure they have experienced quite a few difficulties because of it.
> 
> I commend their commitment to each other. that is impressive. What would a marriage certificate do to change their lives?


Logical fallacy alert.

Ninja edit: Built's cleaning up for me.


----------



## KelJu (Oct 29, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> And I'm sure they have experienced quite a few difficulties because of it.
> 
> I commend their commitment to each other. that is impressive. What would a marriage certificate do to change their lives?



Built already said what I was going to say.


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 29, 2008)

Built said:


> The same things it will do for a strait couple.



and now we are back to the effects upon society as a reason for denying them a marriage certificate.

I have no problems giving POA for things.


----------



## mcguin (Oct 29, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> all right, but before we get started recognise that I don't believe the word of God ended with the bible. I believe God still has guidence to us his children and as such continues to reveal his will to living prophets today as he did in biblical times. because of things like pornography which is an issue today that wasn't 2,000 years ago. God is not silenced.
> 
> To begin it's going to be hard to use the old testament or old covenant. when Jesus fulfilled the law of moses and gave us the new testament or new covenant. Jesus gave us the higher law. With new revelation Jesus expects us to follow higher standards now than he did the people of moses.
> 
> but this isn't anything new to you. you live and follow the bible. right?



now you sound like a mormon!


----------



## Built (Oct 29, 2008)

biochem, in your own words, what is your understanding of the negative effect upon society in allowing gay marriage?"


----------



## KelJu (Oct 29, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> and now we are back to the effects upon society as a reason for denying them a marriage certificate.
> 
> I have no problems giving POA for things.



What? No no no no no. Back to what you said. 



			
				bio-chem said:
			
		

> What would a marriage certificate do to change their lives?



You tell me what it changes for a straight couple.


----------



## Built (Oct 29, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> all right, but before we get started recognise that I don't believe the word of God ended with the bible. I believe God still has guidence to us his children and as such continues to reveal his will to living prophets today as he did in biblical times. because of things like pornography which is an issue today that wasn't 2,000 years ago. God is not silenced.
> 
> To begin it's going to be hard to use the old testament or old covenant. when Jesus fulfilled the law of moses and gave us the new testament or new covenant. Jesus gave us the higher law. With new revelation Jesus expects us to follow higher standards now than he did the people of moses.
> 
> but this isn't anything new to you. you live and follow the bible. right?




I was poking at you, friend.


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 29, 2008)

mcguin said:


> now you sound like a mormon!



i dont believe i ever stopped


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 29, 2008)

Built said:


> biochem, in your own words, what is your understanding of the negative effect upon society in allowing gay marriage?"



We have had this conversation before. on multiple different threads for different discussions as well as this one. I admit that I am not capable of explaining it to the degree that article is. so i will only say this.

a society is strongest when the basic structure of a family is strengthened. a mother and father in a relationship built upon love and selflessness. children raised in this enviorment have the greatest chance of growing up and having having happy lives and healthy relationships themselves. we should do all we can to strengthen these family relationships.


----------



## Built (Oct 29, 2008)

My husband and I cannot have children. 

Does this threaten the basic structure of the family?


----------



## danzik17 (Oct 29, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> We have had this conversation before. on multiple different threads for different discussions as well as this one. I admit that I am not capable of explaining it to the degree that article is. so i will only say this.
> 
> a society is strongest when the basic structure of a family is strengthened. a mother and father in a relationship built upon love and selflessness. children raised in this enviorment have the greatest chance of growing up and having having happy lives and healthy relationships themselves. we should do all we can to strengthen these family relationships.



What does that have to do with marriage?  It sounds like you are against same sex couples adopting children, not against them being married.  I'm not going to blame you either;  who knows what kind of psychological effects it will have on a child to have 2 fathers or 2 mothers.


----------



## lnvanry (Oct 30, 2008)

PreMier said:


> not when they want a religious institution that doesnt believe in gay marriage to marry them.




wait, where in any of the props does it REQUIRE a private institution to marry a gay couple?  No law can force a church to marry any couple....gay or staight


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 30, 2008)

Built said:


> My husband and I cannot have children.
> 
> Does this threaten the basic structure of the family?



yea, thats what I'm saying

we have done all of this before. I'm not doing it again. if you want to discuss something in that article I would be happy to write about it. otherwise. i've posted in here way too much.


----------



## Built (Oct 30, 2008)

That's okay, I understand. Sometimes we have strong opinions we cannot explain.


----------



## MCx2 (Oct 30, 2008)

Built said:


> That's okay, I understand. Sometimes we have strong opinions we cannot explain.


----------



## PreMier (Oct 30, 2008)

Built said:


> That's okay, I understand. Sometimes we have strong opinions we cannot explain.



c'mon now your just fishing for an argument


----------



## Splash Log (Oct 30, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> We have had this conversation before. on multiple different threads for different discussions as well as this one. I admit that I am not capable of explaining it to the degree that article is. so i will only say this.
> 
> a society is strongest when the basic structure of a family is strengthened. a mother and father in a relationship built upon love and selflessness. children raised in this enviorment have the greatest chance of growing up and having having happy lives and healthy relationships themselves. we should do all we can to strengthen these family relationships.



If I chop my dick off and had it made into a vagina, and get tits, then I marry a man and we adopt an infant child of the same race and never tell them they are adopted and raise him/her like I am a woman would the results be the same?


----------



## MCx2 (Oct 30, 2008)

PreMier said:


> c'mon now your just fishing for an argument




Seems to me she just wants an explanation, which bio can't seem to give in his own words. Good strategy though. Next time I'm debating something I'm just going to post links instead of thinking of my own rebuttals.


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 30, 2008)

Splash Log said:


> If I chop my dick off and had it made into a vagina, and get tits, then I marry a man and we adopt an infant child of the same race and never tell them they are adopted and raise him/her like I am a woman would the results be the same?



try it. let me know how that goes for you.


----------



## PreMier (Oct 30, 2008)

ReproMan said:


> Seems to me she just wants an explanation, which bio can't seem to give in his own words. Good strategy though. Next time I'm debating something I'm just going to post links instead of thinking of my own rebuttals.



fuck that.. she is fishing for an argument, thats it. typical really.

same with you, thats a fucking cop out.  read this.. and you will see what his rebuttal is


*How Would Same-Sex Marriage Affect Society?*

Possible restrictions on religious freedom are not the only societal implications of legalizing same-sex marriage. Perhaps the most common argument that proponents of same-sex marriage make is that it is essentially harmless and will not affect the institution of traditional heterosexual marriage in any way. â€œIt wonâ€™t affect you, so why should you care?â€™ is the common refrain. While it may be true that allowing single-sex unions will not immediately and directly affect all existing marriages, the real question is how it will affect society as a whole over time, including the rising generation and future generations. The experience of the few European countries that already have legalized same-sex marriage suggests that any dilution of the traditional definition of marriage will further erode the already weakened stability of marriages and family generally. Adopting same-sex marriage compromises the traditional concept of marriage, with harmful consequences for society.    

Aside from the very serious consequence of undermining and diluting the sacred nature of marriage between a man and a woman, there are many practical implications in the sphere of public policy that will be of deep concern to parents and society as a whole. These are critical to understanding the seriousness of the overall issue of same-sex marriage.    

When a man and a woman marry with the intention of forming a new family, their success in that endeavor depends on their willingness to renounce the single-minded pursuit of self-fulfillment and to sacrifice their time and means to the nurturing and rearing of their children. Marriage is fundamentally an unselfish act: legally protected because only a male and female together can create new life, and because the rearing of children requires a life-long commitment, which marriage is intended to provide. Societal recognition of same-sex marriage cannot be justified simply on the grounds that it provides self-fulfillment to its partners, for it is not the purpose of government to provide legal protection to every possible way in which individuals may pursue fulfillment. By definition, all same-sex unions are infertile, and two individuals of the same gender, whatever their affections, can never form a marriage devoted to raising their own mutual offspring.

It is true that some same-sex couples will obtain guardianship over children â€“through prior heterosexual relationships, through adoption in the states where this is permitted, or by artificial insemination. Despite that, the all-important question of public policy must be: what environment is best for the child and for the rising generation? Traditional marriage provides a solid and well-established social identity to children. It increases the likelihood that they will be able to form a clear gender identity, with sexuality closely linked to both love and procreation. By contrast, the legalization of same-sex marriage likely will erode the social identity, gender development, and moral character of children. Is it really wise for society to pursue such a radical experiment without taking into account its long-term consequences for children?

As just one example of how children will be adversely affected, the establishment of same-sex marriage as a civil right will inevitably require mandatory changes in school curricula. When the state says that same-sex unions are equivalent to heterosexual marriages, the curriculum of public schools will have to support this claim. Beginning with elementary school, children will be taught that marriage can be defined as a relation between any two adults and that consensual sexual relations are morally neutral. Classroom instruction on sex education in secondary schools can be expected to equate homosexual intimacy with heterosexual relations.  These developments will create serious clashes between the agenda of the secular school system and the right of parents to teach their children traditional standards of morality.

Finally, throughout history the family has served as an essential bulwark of individual liberty. The walls of a home provide a defense against detrimental social influences and the sometimes overreaching powers of government. In the absence of abuse or neglect, government does not have the right to intervene in the rearing and moral education of children in the home. Strong families are thus vital for political freedom. But when governments presume to redefine the nature of marriage, issuing regulations to ensure public acceptance of non-traditional unions, they have moved a step closer to intervening in the sacred sphere of domestic life. The consequences of crossing this line are many and unpredictable, but likely would include an increase in the power and reach of the state toward whatever ends it seeks to pursue.


----------



## PreMier (Oct 30, 2008)

honestly, lets take a look at america today, vs. america back in the 40's or 50's.  i could seriously write a 1000 page essay on this shit.

right now we have a society that feels its OK to have children out of wedlock.. we have a society that doesnt have shit for a family structure.. and the kids have nothing to look up to other than MTV and fucking reality tv shows.

what has that caused?  well, because of that, there are less family values/and structure.  they dont have a mother/father to teach them how to be fiscally and morally responsible.  so they are left to watch tv, and learn from their friends (so smart  ).  now, we have more debt in our country than ever, there are more foreclosures, there is more crime etc.  and i personally feel that all this relates back to weak family structure and improper marriages.  if they had parents there to teach and guid them, this wouldnt happen

now take a look at america 60 years ago.. people lived within their means, they had tight social/family bonds.. and because of that they were able to pay off their homes, retire and live good lives.

i could go on and on.. but this shit just pisses me off


----------



## MCx2 (Oct 30, 2008)

PreMier said:


> fuck that.. she is fishing for an argument, thats it. typical really.
> 
> same with you, thats a fucking cop out.  read this.. and you will see what his rebuttal is
> 
> ...




Good work, you've proved nothing except you can press ctrl+c & ctrl+v.   

Do you even know what cop-out means?

I have no vested interest in this topic. Gays getting married doesn't affect me in the slightest, and it has no bearing on the way others' live their lives either. Attempting to micromanage the morals of others is just flat out pompousness, and it's exactly what has the USA in the doghouse with the rest of the world. I understand the argument of marriage being a "sacred union between a man and a woman", unfortunately the law has made it more of a business deal than something sacred and denying gays " the perks of doing buisness" is flat out criminal. Things have changed quite a bit over the past 2 centuries, you should check it out...


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 30, 2008)

ReproMan said:


> Good work, you've proved nothing except you can press ctrl+c & ctrl+v.
> 
> Do you even know what cop-out means?
> 
> I have no vested interest in this topic. Gays getting married doesn't affect me in the slightest, and it has no bearing on the way others' live their lives either. Attempting to micromanage the morals of others is just flat out pompousness, and it's exactly what has the USA in the doghouse with the rest of the world. I understand the argument of marriage being a "sacred union between a man and a woman", unfortunately the law has made it more of a business deal than something sacred and denying gays " the perks of doing buisness" is flat out criminal. Things have changed quite a bit over the past 2 centuries, you should check it out...


or maybe you should just take a second and read what you copied. everything you just used as an argument was addressed in what you just passed over. its not a cop-out to quote something. do you know what cop-out means?


----------



## MCx2 (Oct 30, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> or maybe you should just take a second and read what you copied. everything you just used as an argument was addressed in what you just passed over. its not a cop-out to quote something. do you know what cop-out means?



Did I say what he did was a cop-out?? Did you leave your reading skills at home today?


----------



## MCx2 (Oct 30, 2008)

My original point was, how is me pointing out the fact that you've been dancing around Built's questions for 2 pages, a cop-out?


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 30, 2008)

ReproMan said:


> Did I say what he did was a cop-out?? Did you leave your reading skills at home today?



no dumb ass. you were saying i'm coping out by leaving a link.

and despite the fact that i left that link two pages ago. no one has tried to touch it. just ignored it. i can only assume it is because it makes sense, and addresses the issues yet goes against your point of view so all you can do is ignore it. good luck with sticking your head in the sand the rest of your life


----------



## tucker01 (Oct 30, 2008)

lets just ban marriage....it fucks everything up.


----------



## MCx2 (Oct 30, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> Unlike the right to own property the right to marriage is not a universal one. The states posses the right to regulate marriage as well as to pass laws for the betterment of society as decided by the voice of the people. The voice of the people is being determined right now. I think this is needed as it is not the courts dictating but legislation determining this issue.
> 
> As to the reason why I believe society will be better off please refer to the article I posted. I will never be able to explain it as well as that article.
> 
> ...



This was my favorite. You didn't have time to address Built (who is owning you in this discussion btw) but you had time to make 4 posts over the following hour... 

You do a mean soft-shoe.


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 30, 2008)

ReproMan said:


> This was my favorite. You didn't have time to address Built (who is owning you in this discussion btw) but you had time to make 4 posts over the following hour...
> 
> You do a mean soft-shoe.



actually its because im at work and can respond to stupid posts like yours quickly. hers is an intelligent post that will require more time at one sitting than i have to give at the moment.


----------



## PreMier (Oct 30, 2008)

ReproMan said:


> Good work, you've proved nothing except you can press ctrl+c & ctrl+v.
> 
> Do you even know what cop-out means?
> 
> I have no vested interest in this topic. Gays getting married doesn't affect me in the slightest, and it has no bearing on the way others' live their lives either. Attempting to micromanage the morals of others is just flat out pompousness, and it's exactly what has the USA in the doghouse with the rest of the world. I understand the argument of marriage being a "sacred union between a man and a woman", unfortunately the law has made it more of a business deal than something sacred and denying gays " the perks of doing buisness" is flat out criminal. Things have changed quite a bit over the past 2 centuries, you should check it out...



a cop out is avoiding responsibility.  and thats what im saying your doing.  if you "dont care because it doesnt effect you" then why post in here?  your just a bitch that wants to argue, you always pull some shit like this.

maybe you should read something about benjamin franklin.. he separated virtue, morality, and faith from organized religion, although he felt that if religion in general grew weaker, morality, virtue, and society in general would also decline.  and thats what the article i posted talkes about.  america was not established to impress european countries.  so who gives a shit


----------



## MCx2 (Oct 30, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> actually its because im at work and can respond to stupid posts like yours quickly. hers is an intelligent post that will require more time at one sitting than i have to give at the moment.



You had all last night, or are you waiting for someone to change the subject again so you can do more dancing?



PreMier said:


> a cop out is avoiding responsibility.  and thats what im saying your doing.  if you "dont care because it doesnt effect you" then why post in here?  your just a bitch that wants to argue, you always pull some shit like this.
> 
> maybe you should read something about benjamin franklin.. he separated virtue, morality, and faith from organized religion, although he felt that if religion in general grew weaker, morality, virtue, and society in general would also decline.  and thats what the article i posted talkes about.  america was not established to impress european countries.  so who gives a shit





It doesn't affect you either you moron, or anyone in this thread that's not gay. That's my point.


----------



## PreMier (Oct 30, 2008)

ReproMan said:


> It doesn't affect you either you moron, or anyone in this thread that's not gay. That's my point.



thats where you are wrong.. im a constitutionalist, and i believe that society is declining because of a lot of things.  allowing gays to marry is one of them.  so it does effect me.


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 30, 2008)

ReproMan said:


> You had all last night, or are you waiting for someone to change the subject again so you can do more dancing?



nope, had a date last night. cant spend all my time on IM. sorry.



ReproMan said:


> It doesn't affect you either you moron, .


no, it effects society. to see how please read the post above you yourself quoted. I'm starting to grow tired of your worthless shit. Kelju, built, crazy enough. they know how to share ideas. you should try learning from them


----------



## tallcall (Oct 30, 2008)

How is any of this necessarily bad?

There is no proof anything good or bad will happen so it is all just a leap of faith.

As for me, personally, I hate almost all organized religions equally - I'm really angry with Evangelicals though!


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 30, 2008)

damn, im sorry I forgot you tallcall. i enjoy your posts as well


----------



## MCx2 (Oct 30, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> nope, had a date last night. cant spend all my time on IM. sorry.
> 
> 
> no, it effects society. to see how please read the post above you yourself quoted. I'm starting to grow tired of your worthless shit. Kelju, built, crazy enough. they know how to share ideas. you should try learning from them



You're a pompous prick that seems to think you're on a higher moral plain than just about everyone you've ever had a discussion with on this forum. I've been tired of _your _worthless shit for years now.  

The only reason it "affects society" is because of religious yahoos like yourself that make a big deal of it. Otherwise it would be a non-issue, and gays would already be privy to the same perks straights have been reaping for years. 

It's real simple, mind your own fucking business. How bout that for an idea?


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 30, 2008)

ReproMan said:


> You're a pompous prick that seems to think you're on a higher moral plain than just about everyone you've ever had a discussion with on this forum. I've been tired of _your _worthless shit for years now.
> 
> The only reason it "affects society" is because of religious yahoos like yourself that make a big deal of it. Otherwise it would be a non-issue, and gays would already be privy to the same perks straights have been reaping for years.
> 
> It's real simple, mind your own fucking business. How bout that for an idea?



you seem a little stressed out. maybe you should do the same thing i told kelju to do. i think it is pretty safe to say that the majority of people on this forum have a different assessment than yourself about my attitude. good luck with your witch hunt though.


----------



## MCx2 (Oct 30, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> you seem a little stressed out. maybe you should do the same thing i told kelju to do. i think it is pretty safe to say that the majority of people on this forum have a different assessment than yourself about my attitude. good luck with your witch hunt though.



I'm perfectly chill. 

I will say this though: Nothing bothers me more in this world than people using religion and "morals" as an excuse to meddle with the lives/cultures of others. That in itself has more of a negative impact on society IMO than some random pair of guys getting married in Indiana.


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 30, 2008)

ReproMan said:


> You're a pompous prick that seems to think you're on a higher moral plain than just about everyone you've ever had a discussion with on this forum. I've been tired of _your _worthless shit for years now.
> 
> It's real simple, mind your own fucking business. How bout that for an idea?
> 
> ...


----------



## MCx2 (Oct 30, 2008)

bio-chem said:


>



You should see me when I actually _am_ pissed.  

Trust me, I typed that with a huge smile.


----------



## crazy_enough (Oct 30, 2008)

DOMS said:


> ... but I also think that redefining the basic tenets of society is a Pandora's Box.


 

Yes, because our current society's state is amazing and stellar right? 












(yeah, I know, nice way to make a comeback eh!?  )


----------



## Dale Mabry (Oct 30, 2008)

PreMier said:


> honestly, lets take a look at america today, vs. america back in the 40's or 50's.  i could seriously write a 1000 page essay on this shit.
> 
> right now we have a society that feels its OK to have children out of wedlock.. we have a society that doesnt have shit for a family structure.. and the kids have nothing to look up to other than MTV and fucking reality tv shows.
> 
> ...



Here's the problem with this theory...

There are people who come from non-traditional means that do well and don't do well, just as there are people from traditional families that go either way as well.  So, if a woman were to be married and her husband died while she were pregnant, her child would not be in a traditional family, should that child be terminated?  In addition, you would have to admit that divorce would lead to a non-traditional family unit, should divorce be outlawed?

Look at Paris Hilton, traditional family structure, would you consider her a productive member of society?  How you can draw a conslusion that gay marriage would lead to a fucked up kid, when there are just as many gleaming examples form the traditional family.  I wonder if it could be that it's not the parent's sexual orientation that affects the child, but the morality of that person.  Of course, if you define homosexuality as an immoral act, you can't really look at that person as anything but immoral.


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 30, 2008)

crazy_enough said:


> Yes, because our current society's state is amazing and stellar right?
> 
> (yeah, I know, nice way to make a comeback eh!?  )


Nice to see you're still kicking around crazy. I was hoping at some point in time you would add your unique perspective. I don't always agree with you, but you always add something that makes me think


----------



## KelJu (Oct 30, 2008)

PreMier said:


> thats where you are wrong.. im a constitutionalist, and i believe that society is declining because of a lot of things.  allowing gays to marry is one of them.  so it does effect me.



I can't find anything in the constitution that would reinforce your stance against gay marriage. 

However denying a gay couple the right to marry, because it is against your religious views, goes against the very essence of liberty.


----------



## crazy_enough (Oct 30, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> Nice to see you're still kicking around crazy. I was hoping at some point in time you would add your unique perspective. I don't always agree with you, but you always add something that makes me think


 
Yeah, Im alive and kickin'....

Throughout the thread I felt like posting many many times... But Im so completely biased, coming from Canada (where gays marry legally) and being married...

We live absolutely normal (boring even!) lives, go to work every day, pay our taxes, adhere to laws and regulations and have raised two perfectly normal and balanced children, both heterosexual.

What I dont understand about such an opposition to gay marriage is when a point is made about  sanctity (sp?) and the meaning of mariage. 

What I mean is that almost half of married heterosexuals end up divorcing... Many commit adultery, some abuse and seem to not give a shit about the meaning of their own mariage ... So why is the constitutional meaning of mariage all of a sudden so important? 

To me, mariage is both a meaningful welding of lives and a legal agreement for both parties involved. To me, mariage is the usual in sickness and in health, through richer or poorer, and all that yaddiyadda... So what makes my definition of mariage so different from that of straight folks?


----------



## min0 lee (Oct 30, 2008)

Damn, this got out of hand......


----------



## min0 lee (Oct 30, 2008)

PreMier said:


> wow, what a thread.. typical of min0 to start some shit like this





OK, so I won't  start a thread about Mormons.....Jew, Catholics, Athiests, Republicans, Democrats, Jets, 49's.

Talk about PC. It's only OK if it doesn't hurt your feelings.

I admire Bio-chem a lot, he's a smart kid for his age and he fights for what he believes in.


----------



## crazy_enough (Oct 30, 2008)

min0 lee said:


> Damn, this got out of hand......


 

as it should  lol


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 30, 2008)

KelJu said:


> I can't find anything in the constitution that would reinforce your stance against gay marriage.
> 
> However denying a gay couple the right to marry, because it is against your religious views, goes against the very essence of liberty.



scary enough this comes down to the commerce clause in the federal constitution. Constitutionally speaking this is a state to state battle. As we are seeing in california, florida and arizona. exactly where it should be constitutionally speaking. on a federal level it comes down to the commerce clause. meaning does washington state have to recognize the massachusettes gay marriage even though it is not legal in washington? it gets very tricky. 

we are already seeing problems where gay couples have moved out of state and applied for a divorce in the new state. the new state has no laws recognizing this marriage so how can they grant a divorce? if they pass a law allowing for this divorce they have now recognized gay marriage and now through the back door gay marriage is allowed in that state. so the couple is denied a divorce in the new state and told at least one must move back to the old state, establish residence (which may take months) and apply for divorce there. this is a big deal.

If one starts looking at past cases of law dealing with marriage you can see how this is a very difficult topic from a constitutional stand point.


----------



## PreMier (Oct 30, 2008)

KelJu said:


> I can't find anything in the constitution that would reinforce your stance against gay marriage.
> 
> However denying a gay couple the right to marry, because it is against your religious views, goes against the very essence of liberty.



Constitution Party (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The party also opposes government recognition of same-sex unions"



min0 lee said:


> OK, so I won't  start a thread about Mormons.....Jew, Catholics, Athiests, Republicans, Democrats, Jets, 49's.
> 
> Talk about PC. It's only OK if it doesn't hurt your feelings.
> 
> I admire Bio-chem a lot, he's a smart kid for his age and he fights for what he believes in.



i try and stay out of religion and political threads.  mormons always seem to be persecuted so i posted here


----------



## min0 lee (Oct 30, 2008)

PreMier said:


> i try and stay out of religion and political threads.  mormons always seem to be persecuted so i posted here



I don't think the Mormons get it any worse than other religions, in fact the religion that gets the most shit here is the Muslim religion.


----------



## PreMier (Oct 30, 2008)

thats because they are all terrorists!


----------



## min0 lee (Oct 30, 2008)

I don't agree with the Mormons on this issue but I do respect their beliefs.


----------



## min0 lee (Oct 30, 2008)

PreMier said:


> thats because they are all terrorists!



Not all, I know a lot of decent Muslims.


----------



## NeilPearson (Oct 30, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> you seem a little stressed out. maybe you should do the same thing i told kelju to do. i think it is pretty safe to say that the majority of people on this forum have a different assessment than yourself about my attitude. good luck with your witch hunt though.



I'll back up his assessment


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 30, 2008)

min0 lee said:


> I admire Bio-chem a lot, he's a smart kid for his age and he fights for what he believes in.



I appreciate that.


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 30, 2008)

NeilPearson said:


> I'll back up his assessment



Im more than ok with that. LOL


----------



## Jarhed (Oct 30, 2008)

California Proposition 8 - Get the Facts on Prop. 8

Proposition 8 - Title and Summary - Voter Information Guide 2008


----------



## NeilPearson (Oct 30, 2008)

PreMier said:


> honestly, lets take a look at america today, vs. america back in the 40's or 50's.  i could seriously write a 1000 page essay on this shit.
> 
> right now we have a society that feels its OK to have children out of wedlock.. we have a society that doesnt have shit for a family structure.. and the kids have nothing to look up to other than MTV and fucking reality tv shows.
> 
> ...



Wow what a bunch of bullshit.  Life 60 years ago wasn't all that great.  It wasn't all "Leave it to Beaver".  They had just as many problems.  The difference is they hid them away to give others the impression that everything was great.  It was taboo to talk about it.  Women just put up with their drunk ass husbands coming home and beating them because they had no other options.  Gays just had to hide who they were.  Girls didn't have as many kids out of wedlock because when they got knocked up at 18, they were forced to get married to someone they didn't love and live that lie for the rest of their lives.  Family bonds and values were never any better than they are now... they just stuffed their skeletons deeper into the closet.

And as far as blaming financial problems on the way we live goes... I don't see the relationship.  What happened in the 30s?  With your logic those must have been some immoral mother fuckers.  They didn't just have home foreclosures, they were homeless and had to stand in line at soup kitchens just so they wouldn't starve to death.  Why didn't their superior upbringing and family values prevent that?


----------



## bio-chem (Oct 30, 2008)

Jarhed said:


> California Proposition 8 - Get the Facts on Prop. 8
> 
> Proposition 8 - Title and Summary - Voter Information Guide 2008





everyone on both sides of this issue should read these 2 links.


----------



## DOMS (Oct 30, 2008)

min0 lee said:


> I don't agree with the Mormons on this issue but I do respect their beliefs.



They have the only religion that I've seen that actually puts their efforts where their mouth is.  Every other religion talks a good "do for others" game, but they're the only ones who back it up.

And that's saying something.  I dislike most religions.


----------



## DOMS (Oct 30, 2008)

min0 lee said:


> Not all, I know a lot of decent Muslims.



But they're all dead, right?


----------



## min0 lee (Oct 30, 2008)




----------



## DOMS (Oct 30, 2008)

.


----------



## Built (Oct 30, 2008)

PreMier said:


> *How Would Same-Sex Marriage Affect Society?*
> 
> Possible restrictions on religious freedom are not the only societal implications of legalizing same-sex marriage. Perhaps the most common argument that proponents of same-sex marriage make is that it is essentially harmless and will not affect the institution of traditional heterosexual marriage in any way. â¦£8364;?????It wonâ¦£8364;â???¢t affect you, so why should you care?â¦£8364;â???¢ is the common refrain. While it may be true that allowing single-sex unions will not immediately and directly affect all existing marriages, the real question is how it will affect society as a whole over time, including the rising generation and future generations. The experience of the few European countries that already have legalized same-sex marriage suggests that any dilution of the traditional definition of marriage will further erode the already weakened stability of marriages and family generally..


I'm curious - how has this been demonstrated?


PreMier said:


> Adopting same-sex marriage compromises the traditional concept of marriage, with harmful consequences for society.


It is not at all clear how compromising the traditional concept of marriage will result in harmful consequences for society. Traditional marriage has meant many things over the years: financial and political alignment of families, survival of both partners in frontier lands, plural marriage - for example, among LDS here in North America, in the Middle-East to this day, even among the Inuit. Traditions change to suit a changing social environment. How is this any different? 



PreMier said:


> Aside from the very serious consequence of undermining and diluting the sacred nature of marriage between a man and a woman, .



Which does not sound at all serious to me. 


PreMier said:


> there are many practical implications in the sphere of public policy that will be of deep concern to parents and society as a whole. These are critical to understanding the seriousness of the overall issue of same-sex marriage.
> 
> When a man and a woman marry with the intention of forming a new family, their success in that endeavour depends on their willingness to renounce the single-minded pursuit of self-fulfillment and to sacrifice their time and means to the nurturing and rearing of their children. Marriage is fundamentally an unselfish act: legally protected because only a male and female together can create new life, and because the rearing of children requires a life-long commitment, which marriage is intended to provide..


My parents divorced. Lots of people do. Most of us somehow still turn out okay. 


PreMier said:


> Societal recognition of same-sex marriage cannot be justified simply on the grounds that it provides self-fulfillment to its partners, for it is not the purpose of government to provide legal protection to every possible way in which individuals may pursue fulfillment. By definition, all same-sex unions are infertile, and two individuals of the same gender, whatever their affections, can never form a marriage devoted to raising their own mutual offspring..


My husband and I can't have children either. Should we have decided it was immoral to marry because of this impossibility?


PreMier said:


> It is true that some same-sex couples will obtain guardianship over children â¦£8364;â?????through prior heterosexual relationships, through adoption in the states where this is permitted, or by artificial insemination. Despite that, the all-important question of public policy must be: what environment is best for the child and for the rising generation? Traditional marriage provides a solid and well-established social identity to children. It increases the likelihood that they will be able to form a clear gender identity, *with sexuality closely linked to both love and procreation.* .


Is this bolded part important? My husband and I will need to know this within a few hours. We have sex a LOT, and we absolutely know we cannot have children. For us, sexuality has exactly NOTHING to do with procreation. 

Shit. We're undermining the sanctity of marriage by being monogamous! Wait until I tell hubby the only way we can avoid this is to fuck around! ONE of us will be pleased!



PreMier said:


> By contrast, the legalization of same-sex marriage likely will erode the social identity, gender development, and moral character of children. Is it really wise for society to pursue such a radical experiment without taking into account its long-term consequences for children?
> .


My dad was a violent alcoholic. I would have done better if mom had shacked up with a girlfriend, believe me. 


PreMier said:


> As just one example of how children will be adversely affected, the establishment of same-sex marriage as a civil right will inevitably require mandatory changes in school curricula. When the state says that same-sex unions are equivalent to heterosexual marriages, the curriculum of public schools will have to support this claim. Beginning with elementary school, children will be taught that marriage can be defined as a relation between any two adults and that consensual sexual relations are morally neutral..


Thank GOD! 


PreMier said:


> Classroom instruction on sex education in secondary schools can be expected to equate homosexual intimacy with heterosexual relations.  .


Yes! 


PreMier said:


> These developments will create serious clashes between the agenda of the secular school system and the right of parents to teach their children traditional standards of morality.
> .


They're already there. That's why so many Fundamentalists elect to home-school. 



PreMier said:


> Finally, throughout history the family has served as an essential bulwark of individual liberty. The walls of a home provide a defense against detrimental social influences and the *sometimes overreaching powers of government.*.


Interesting choice of wordsâ???¦ 


PreMier said:


> In the absence of abuse or neglect, government does not have the right to intervene in the rearing and moral education of children in the home. Strong families are thus vital for political freedom. But when governments presume to redefine the nature of marriage, issuing regulations to ensure public acceptance of non-traditional unions, they have moved a step closer to intervening in the sacred sphere of domestic life. .


<gasp!> Next thing you know, women will get the VOTE! 


PreMier said:


> The consequences of crossing this line are many and unpredictable, but likely would include an increase in the power and reach of the state toward whatever ends it seeks to pursue.


So the family will be undermined by same-sex marriage, and this gives more power to the state than the family unit. But in doing so, the rights of individuals to marry whom they choose is enhanced, because the individual has more power than the family. 

Therefore, same-sex unions give more power to the people! Yeah babeeee!

Interesting thread. I gotta go train now though. Lats and delts tonightâ???¦


----------



## NordicNacho (Oct 30, 2008)

its getting scary here in cali

this really scares me  Im just happy I live in Claremont and don't have to deal with these people

Prop 8 spokesman says defeating same-sex marriage is like defeating Hitler





YouTube Video


----------



## Big Smoothy (Feb 7, 2010)

PreMier said:


> you have facts that the LDS religion is a cult?  your stating an opinion, nothing more.  like stated above, all organized religion could be considered a cult, it just depends what the definition is.



True.  

I think other "religions" are ideologies and/or cults.  It depends on the definition.

Mormonism:

Did Jesus come to the present day United States after crucifixion and try to convert the native American Indians?

That's what Mormons believe.  I personally, don't believe it.

Did Joseph Smith find the golden plates?  Where are they?  Nobody knows.

Were black people once white?  This is what Mormons believe?

Can Mormons become gods after death?  This is what Mormons, believe.


And this is only the beginning of Mormon theology.

One of my cousins converted, BTW.


----------



## theCaptn' (Feb 7, 2010)

will you jews just STFU?


----------



## DOMS (Feb 7, 2010)

Like anyone should care what you think.



Big Smoothy said:


> I support the insurgents.  I support road-side bombs.  I support snipers.
> 
> The Americans in Iraq are fascists.
> 
> ...


----------



## Big Smoothy (Feb 7, 2010)

DOMS said:


> Like anyone should care what you think.



I made a post on this topic, because DOMS redding for a post about Mormons. 

That's the only reason why I posted on this old topic.

And as for my quote, DOMS, I still stand by - I still believe in it.

And if the Americans stay in Afghanistan more than a year or two for their geo-political interests,

I'll believe and say, and post, the same thing about the military sheep in Afghanistan.

Note my signature below, said by Henry Kissinger.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 7, 2010)

Big Smoothy said:


> I support the insurgents.  I support road-side bombs.  I support snipers.
> 
> The Americans in Iraq are fascists.
> 
> ...





Big Smoothy said:


> And as for my quote, DOMS, I still stand by - I still believe in it.



I doubt that I'll be the only person giving you negative rep today.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Feb 7, 2010)

^ DOMS,

It doesn't matter. 

Who cares what my opinion is?  It's a web forum.


----------



## bio-chem (Feb 7, 2010)

Big Smoothy said:


> I made a post on this topic, because DOMS redding for a post about Mormons.
> 
> That's the only reason why I posted on this old topic.
> 
> ...



-1

seriously dude, military sheep in iraq and Afghanistan? you can hate the politicians that have our troops on foreign soil all you want. both republican and democrat, but wishing evil on a kid who saw the opportunities provided by the military and is now following orders is closed minded, ignorant, and really takes callous stupidity to a whole new level.


----------



## bio-chem (Feb 7, 2010)

Big Smoothy said:


> True.
> 
> I think other "religions" are ideologies and/or cults.  It depends on the definition.
> 
> ...



you know it's funny. every time anti's start posting up stuff about mormons the membership rolls grow. I wonder why that is?


----------



## Big Smoothy (Feb 7, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> -1
> 
> seriously dude, military sheep in iraq and Afghanistan? you can hate the politicians that have our troops on foreign soil all you want. both republican and democrat, but wishing evil on a kid who saw the opportunities provided by the military and is now following orders is closed minded, ignorant, and really takes callous stupidity to a whole new level.



That is the problem.

The "kid" is an adult.  There are NO KIDS in the military.

And "opportunities?"

That is another problem.  High school educated American should not be allowed in the military.

Too young, too uneducated.  Minds too easily molded by the military at the young age. 

Nobody "sends" these adult to Vietnam, Iraq, Panama, Afghanistan, or Pakistan.

Same now, as 150 years ago.


----------



## ALBOB (Feb 7, 2010)

Big Smoothy said:


> That is the problem.
> 
> *The "kid" is an adult*.  There are NO KIDS in the military.
> 
> ...




Let's see; they're adults when it suits your purposes.  Then they're too young when it suits your purposes.  Then the go back to being adults when it suits your purposes.  Care to remind us why on Earth anyone should give ANYTHING you say and credibility at all? 

And on a personal note, as someone who spent 23 years being an adult that was too young, too dumb and too unable to form my own opinions, FUCK YOU.


----------



## Pirate! (Feb 7, 2010)

Big Smoothy said:


> True.
> Mormonism:
> 
> Did Jesus come to the present day United States after crucifixion and try to convert the native American Indians?
> ...



This is neither the beginning nor the end of the Mormon Theology. For those who prefer truth to rumor, here are the 13 basic beliefs of the LDS, as penned by Joseph Smith Junior:

We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.


We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression.


We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.


We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.


We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof.


We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth.


We believe in the gift of tongues, prophecy, revelation, visions, healing, interpretation of tongues, and so forth.


We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.


We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.


We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent; that Christ will reign personally upon the earth; and, that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory.


We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.


We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.


We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul???We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.


----------



## maniclion (Feb 7, 2010)

I'm glad Big Smoothy is here he makes me, when I fall into my most leftist ideological mindtrap, look like Barry Goldwater....


----------



## lnvanry (Feb 7, 2010)

Big Smoothy said:


> That is the problem.
> 
> The "kid" is an adult.  There are NO KIDS in the military.
> 
> ...



Thats kind of the whole point...which is why you need special exemption to join after a certain age.  You aren't as "moldable" 

The Dept of War (post WWII) had first asked to include service members as young as 16...the public support for that was nill, so they made the boy scouts instead.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Feb 7, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> you know it's funny. every time anti's start posting up stuff about *mormons the membership rolls grow*. I wonder why that is?



Bio-Chem,

Please provide a _source and data_ that "Mormon membership growing" when "anti's start posting."

We are waiting..


----------



## Big Smoothy (Feb 7, 2010)

ALBOB said:


> Let's see; they're adults when it suits your purposes.  Then they're too young when it suits your purposes.  Then the go back to being adults when it suits your purposes.



No,

In the US a person is an adult at the age of 18 years of age.

"kids" are younger than 18.

Period.  It's a definition.  And I responded to a post the mist-labeled Adults - which is what they are - as kids.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Feb 7, 2010)

maniclion said:


> I'm glad Big Smoothy is here he makes me, when I fall into my most leftist ideological mindtrap, look like Barry Goldwater....



Manic, I'm not sure what you're referring to.

As for me, I vote Libertarian.  I started voting Libertarian in 1996. 


I don't like, and I don't believe in the false paradigm of "left" and "right," or "liberal" or "conservative."

Both are more similar than different, and these labels are used to often to over-generalize and applied incorrectly.

These labels - are for the masses.  These labels, are for the sheeple.


----------



## KelJu (Feb 7, 2010)

Big Smoothy said:


> These labels - are for the masses.  These labels, are for the sheeple.



Hey, I like that word...sheeple. 

I plan to use that in the future.


----------



## maniclion (Feb 8, 2010)

Big Smoothy said:


> Manic, I'm not sure what you're referring to.
> 
> As for me, I vote Libertarian.  I started voting Libertarian in 1996.
> 
> ...


You constantly attack the wrong people and put them down, sheeple my ass you think the common man doesn't already knows he's been sold to the slaughter house?  Let me tell you man when the herd stampedes the wolf gets trampled....






YouTube Video


----------



## Big Smoothy (Feb 8, 2010)

maniclion said:


> You constantly attack the wrong people and put them down,



manic, 

I don't want to "put anyone down."  I do criticize, but I criticize organizations and the people that work for them and promote their interest _without questioning those interests._

I get "put down" quite a bit - on a personal basis.  But I don't launch into _ad hominum_ (personal) attacks on posters here.



> sheeple my ass you think the common man doesn't already knows he's been sold to the slaughter house?  Let me tell you man when the herd stampedes the wolf gets trampled....



I at times, am a sheep (sheeple).  I constantly try to question what information I am receiving, check it, and ask myself, _am I too biased_?

We are all human.

But there are many, many, people (in my family, e.g.) and friends back in the USA that don't even question what they see on TV and hear on the radio, and read in those daily newspapers.

They have lost the ability to criticaly think - critically think - and they are loud and rude about it.

There are millions of these folks.

People, that are sheep are, _sheeple._


----------



## maniclion (Feb 8, 2010)

Big Smoothy said:


> manic,
> 
> I don't want to "put anyone down."  I do criticize, but I criticize organizations and the people that work for them and promote their interest _without questioning those interests._
> 
> ...



Let me tell you, you'll never inspire anyone to look a little deeper by insulting them....


----------



## ALBOB (Feb 8, 2010)

Big Smoothy said:


> I don't want to "put anyone down."



No, you just want them blown to bits by roadside bombs or picked off by snipers.  Nice.


----------



## bio-chem (Feb 8, 2010)

ALBOB said:


> Let's see; they're adults when it suits your purposes.  Then they're too young when it suits your purposes.  Then the go back to being adults when it suits your purposes.  Care to remind us why on Earth anyone should give ANYTHING you say and credibility at all?
> 
> And on a personal note, as someone who spent 23 years being an adult that was too young, too dumb and too unable to form my own opinions, FUCK YOU.





I'd rep you if the system would let me.


----------



## bio-chem (Feb 8, 2010)

maniclion said:


> I'm glad Big Smoothy is here he makes me, when I fall into my most leftist ideological mindtrap, look like Barry Goldwater....


----------



## bio-chem (Feb 8, 2010)

Big Smoothy said:


> Bio-Chem,
> 
> Please provide a _source and data_ that "Mormon membership growing" when "anti's start posting."
> 
> We are waiting..





keep waiting. i could care less if you accept fact or not. The LDS faith is the fastest growing faith in the United States.


----------



## bio-chem (Feb 8, 2010)

lnvanry said:


> Thats kind of the whole point...which is why you need special exemption to join after a certain age.  You aren't as "moldable"
> 
> The Dept of War (post WWII) had first asked to include service members as young as 16...the public support for that was nill, so they made the boy scouts instead.



Boy Scouts of America founded February 8, 1910


----------



## DOMS (Feb 8, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> I'd rep you if the system would let me.



"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to ALBOB again."

Damn...


----------



## maniclion (Feb 8, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> keep waiting. i could care less if you accept fact or not. The LDS faith is the fastest growing faith in the United States.



LSD Faith I'm in!!!!!!!!!!

oh wait you said LDS, never mind....


----------



## NeilPearson (Feb 8, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> keep waiting. i could care less if you accept fact or not. *The LDS faith is the fastest growing faith in the United States*.




And "American Idol" is the most watched tv show... 

What does this say about American society?


----------



## bio-chem (Feb 8, 2010)

maniclion said:


> LSD Faith I'm in!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> oh wait you said LDS, never mind....



"You must spread some reputation around before giving it to maniclion again"


----------



## maniclion (Feb 8, 2010)

NeilPearson said:


> And "American Idol" is the most watched tv show...
> 
> What does this say about American society?


That they like to sing and dance?


----------



## NeilPearson (Feb 8, 2010)

maniclion said:


> That they like to sing and dance?



Exactly!


----------



## KelJu (Feb 8, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> keep waiting. i could care less if you accept fact or not. The LDS faith is the fastest growing faith in the United States.



I am curious by what measure? Are you talking about percentage wise or sheer number of new members?


----------



## min0 lee (Feb 8, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> keep waiting. i could care less if you accept fact or not. The LDS faith is the fastest growing faith in the United States.


I see no indication of that in NYC.


----------



## KelJu (Feb 8, 2010)

maniclion said:


> You constantly attack the wrong people and put them down, sheeple my ass you think the common man doesn't already knows he's been sold to the slaughter house?  Let me tell you man when the herd stampedes the wolf gets trampled....
> 
> 
> 
> ...




This post reminded me that I needed to read naked lunch. I just ordered it, and I really hope it doesn't suck.


----------



## bio-chem (Feb 8, 2010)

KelJu said:


> I am curious by what measure? Are you talking about percentage wise or sheer number of new members?



Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons Fastest-Growing 'Churches' in U.S. | Christianpost.com


----------



## maniclion (Feb 8, 2010)

KelJu said:


> This post reminded me that I needed to read naked lunch. I just ordered it, and I really hope it doesn't suck.


It's a hard read if you aren't motivated to get into a puzzle of a book....

I remember that time I was Ambiened out and came on here after reading Naked Lunch all day and wrote a piece so similar to his style....

"everything sounds distorted from the tv so my mind is turning it into a family fight sleep outside finally the Mom is saying "You two will stay out under the stars." They say "bullshit not so the Buzzuerg can find us and take all of our fluids and reinstall bio-gell even though our CNS still reacts with it, sometimes it overreacts and you end up jack crackin the dude in front of you inline cause a simple shuffle foot forward command had crossed with an immediate and intense turn eyes command which was triggered by the dashing dame in aisle 0 but instead switched track like a railcar and headed to your foot tossing it straight into the mans frills for thrills beneath the heels real estate. Well though my good man you lucked at the same instant when the shuffle signal to your feet hit your eyes and you fluttered as though startled by the ravishing broad who takes this as a sign of interest by a gentleman, since generally most men stare."

If you understand any of that you'll dig the book....


----------



## min0 lee (Feb 8, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons Fastest-Growing 'Churches' in U.S. | Christianpost.com



Hmmm..hard to tell but I go by what I see around the city as far as chuches and friends.
You just don't really see many Mormans in NYC, I do see and know a lot Jehova witnesses. I don't even have a friend who's a Morman. I see the few that walk around in those suits in pairs but that's it.

This comes from a city that's as diverse as any and I am all over the city.

What I do see of late are Muslims and a few of the old catholic churches that were empty are now filled with Mexicans who worship some "Milagros" thingy.


----------



## bio-chem (Feb 8, 2010)

min0 lee said:


> Hmmm..hard to tell but I go by what I see around the city as far as chuches and friends.
> You just don't really see many Mormans in NYC, I do see and know a lot Jehova witnesses. I don't even have a friend who's a Morman. I see the few that walk around in those suits in pairs but that's it.
> 
> This comes from a city that's as diverse as any and I am all over the city.
> ...



I've never been to new york city. i can't comment.

There is an LDS temple in manhattan which must mean there is an LDS population.


----------



## min0 lee (Feb 8, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> I've never been to new york city. i can't comment.
> 
> There is an LDS temple in manhattan which must mean there is an LDS population.


We have everthing here in NYC, like I said....NYC is one of the most diverse cities in the world.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Feb 8, 2010)

maniclion said:


> Let me tell you, you'll never inspire anyone to look a little deeper by insulting them....



I hope you tell this to the people that constantly insult me, on this board.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Feb 8, 2010)

LDS followers believe that black people were once, white, but turned black, after refusing to vote between the two competitors.

Agree or disagree, posters?


----------



## bio-chem (Feb 8, 2010)

Big Smoothy said:


> I hope you tell this to the people that constantly insult me, on this board.



you bring it on yourself. people around here are very accepting of differing opinions. the fact you draw the ire of those who otherwise would agree with your position shows something. 

the fact that people around here who disagree with DOMS's position come to his defense should be a large wake up call to you. it obviously isn't, and this is why you are an IM outcast.


----------



## bio-chem (Feb 8, 2010)

Big Smoothy said:


> LDS followers believe that black people were once, white, but turned black, after refusing to vote between the two competitors.
> 
> Agree or disagree, posters?



I've heard some really good LDS tall tales bro, but this is probably a top 5. good luck with your witch hunt. 

If you really want to go after LDS doctrine I suggest you start with Pirates post stating the "We believe....."


----------



## DOMS (Feb 8, 2010)

Big Smoothy said:


> I hope you tell this to the people that constantly insult me, on this board.



Oh, that reminds me: Fuck you!


----------



## bio-chem (Feb 8, 2010)

DOMS said:


> Oh, that reminds me: Fuck you!



back to your old form I see. good show.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 8, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> back to your old form I see. good show.



I can't stand trolls or passive aggressive people.


----------



## min0 lee (Feb 8, 2010)

Big Smoothy said:


> LDS followers believe that black people were once, white, but turned black, after refusing to vote between the two competitors.
> 
> Agree or disagree, posters?





bio-chem said:


> I've heard some really good LDS tall tales bro, but this is probably a top 5. good luck with your witch hunt.
> 
> If you really want to go after LDS doctrine I suggest you start with Pirates post stating the "We believe....."



I believe he was answering a question I had deleted.

Are their any Blacks Mormons?  All seem to be straight Anglo-Saxons.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 8, 2010)

min0 lee said:


> Are their any Blacks Mormons?  All seem to be straight Anglo-Saxons.



When I lived in Salt Lake, there were a bunch of black African LDS people.  And I mean _African_, not that bullshit Africa-American crap.  They were from Africa.


----------



## bio-chem (Feb 8, 2010)

min0 lee said:


> I believe he was answering a question I had deleted.
> 
> Are their any Blacks Mormons?  All seem to be straight Anglo-Saxons.



we have 3 temples in Africa. 

Gladys Knight is LDS


----------



## KelJu (Feb 8, 2010)

maniclion said:


> It's a hard read if you aren't motivated to get into a puzzle of a book....
> 
> I remember that time I was Ambiened out and came on here after reading Naked Lunch all day and wrote a piece so similar to his style....
> 
> ...




That sounds a lot like my thought patterns anyway. I look forward to reading it.


----------



## min0 lee (Feb 8, 2010)

OK, the more you know.....


----------



## min0 lee (Feb 8, 2010)

news local-beat 
*               Prop 8 Trial Judge: Yep, He's Gay             *

*U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker's sexuality an "open secret"*


----------



## DOMS (Feb 8, 2010)

For me, that's not the most interesting thing about this whole prop 8 issue.

What's most interesting is the protests put on by the gays.  They protested at Mormon temples and churches.  However, the biggest group that made Prop 8 pass wasn't the Mormons, it was the blacks.  They voted in large numbers to make it pass.

What's funny is where the gays chose to protest.  But then again, I guess they're much less likely to get their asses kicked in front of a Mormon temple than in South Central.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Feb 8, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> I've heard some really good LDS tall tales bro, but this is probably a top 5. good luck with your witch hunt.
> 
> If you really want to go after LDS doctrine I suggest you start with Pirates post stating the "We believe....."



I am on no witch hunt.

I have watched the Mormon Theology videos, just for kicks.

There are many beliefs they have they won't tell you.  Pirate gave a version - no doubt published by LDS.

Mormonism has an ugly history, and the Mormon church and edited and deleted aspects of Mormon history and Mormon beliefs that are embarrassing and no popular.

Polygamy is just one example.  Joseph Smith ("the prophet") was caught by his wife having an affair.

Then miraculously, gold told him he could have multiple wives.

When the Utah statehood was being discussed in Washington DC in Cogress - voila - Polygmy was axed from Mormon theology.

Mormonism is a sham and a farce.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Feb 8, 2010)

DOMS said:


> When I lived in Salt Lake, there were a bunch of black African LDS people.  And I mean _African_, not that bullshit Africa-American crap.  They were from Africa.



Yes, there are a small number of black LDS members.


----------



## JDub (Feb 8, 2010)

I can has religion?

Mormonism explained by South Park - VIDEO


----------



## Big Smoothy (Feb 8, 2010)

Here are some tenets of Mormon theology.  I believe this was made by a Christian group.  I'll look for me stuff on Mormonism.






YouTube Video


----------



## Pirate! (Feb 8, 2010)

min0 lee said:


> You just don't really see many Mormans in NYC.



That's because they look just like everyone else. Only the missionaries standout.

The vast majority of Black LDS I know are from Africa or first generation African-American.

Premier, DOMS, bio-chem and I spent much of our lives involved to a degree with LDS society/beliefs. We are familiar with the beliefs and what lies at the heart of the culture. 

Why someone would listen to hate speech bread of ignorance and disregard those who were raised in or around the LDS is beyond comprehension. Who do you think provides massive relief efforts when disasters happend? You are right that much goes on behind the scenes. Great acts of service. It may involve two people or two-hundred thousand. I've seen marvelous works of charity and goodwill touch the lives of many because of the strong faith of many LDS.

The prop 8 issue was a challange for many. In the end, the people of California made their choice, and "Mormons" were a minority of the voters. The liberal idea that everyone who votes "conservative" on "moral" issues must be brainwashed is a terrible insult to the American people.


----------



## bio-chem (Feb 8, 2010)

Big Smoothy said:


> I am on no witch hunt.
> 
> I have watched the Mormon Theology videos, just for kicks.
> 
> ...


Mormon theology video's? such as? when it's produced by another sect of Christianity I wouldn't consider it a Mormon theology video. lol.

there are plenty of LDS beliefs that are unpopular. then again when has faith in God ever been popular? there is nothing in the LDS church that is hidden. ask a question about any LDS doctrine and I'm sure you will get a straight answer.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Feb 8, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> there are plenty of LDS beliefs that are unpopular. then again when has faith in God ever been popular?



Belief on 1 god or multiple gods has always been popular: from the Egyptian gods (Orisis & Ra), to the animistic, Zoroastrians, Greeks, Romans, and Constantine, who converted to Christianity.

Then Islam, as well as Hinduism and Judaism.  

I'd say belief a mono-theistic god, or group of gods, has always been popular.  

The gods just change. 


> there is nothing in the LDS church that is hidden.



The history and tenets of the Mormon religion, as young as it is, have been edited, changed, and erased, by the Mormon Church.  

Some documents are held in secret in the Vault in Salt Lake City.


----------



## bio-chem (Feb 9, 2010)

Big Smoothy said:


> Belief on 1 god or multiple gods has always been popular: from the Egyptian gods (Orisis & Ra), to the animistic, Zoroastrians, Greeks, Romans, and Constantine, who converted to Christianity.
> 
> Then Islam, as well as Hinduism and Judaism.
> 
> ...



judaism, yup thats never been persecuted.  not to mention any of the other religions you brought up.

when it comes to persecuted churches right here in the United States the LDS church has to go right up at the top. In a poll before the last election a mormon was less likely than a muslim to be voted for president of the US. 

and again I make the offer. any part of the history, tenets, or secret documents you wish to talk about I would be more than happy to discuss.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Feb 9, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> judaism, yup thats never been persecuted.  not to mention any of the other religions you brought up.



I never said Jews were not persecuted.  My post was in response to your statement of god/religion being popular.  



> when it comes to persecuted churches right here in the United States the LDS church has to go right up at the top. In a poll before the last election a mormon was less likely than a muslim to be voted for president of the US.



The people that would never vote for a Mormon - according to extensive polling data - are _Christians._  Evangelical Christians, in particular.

Christians in general consider Mormonism to be heresy for several reasons.


----------



## bio-chem (Feb 9, 2010)

Big Smoothy said:


> I never said Jews were not persecuted.  My post was in response to your statement of god/religion being popular.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



persecution is a pretty good indication of a lack of popularity in my opinion.

Would you consider yourself an evangelical Christian then? It's hardly just the evangelicals that persecute the LDS faith. Persecution of the LDS faith comes from all sides.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Feb 9, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> persecution is a pretty good indication of a lack of popularity in my opinion.



The persecution of Jews is not because of "working god" being unpopular.

It was because they worshipped a _different_ god.

Spanish inquisition, Progroms, etc. 



> Would you consider yourself an evangelical Christian then?



That's a rhetorical question, but I'll answer it.  I am not a follower nor member of any organized religion.  



> It's hardly just the evangelicals that persecute the LDS faith. Persecution of the LDS faith comes from all sides.



Persecution does not = voting.

We're talking about: _voting._


----------



## maniclion (Feb 9, 2010)

We all become Rasta and smoke some paka, so sticky the sunlight itself sticks.....






YouTube Video











Or we can all be funkadelic too...





YouTube Video


----------



## DOMS (Feb 9, 2010)

Pirate! said:


> Why someone would listen to hate speech bread of ignorance and disregard those who were raised in or around the LDS is beyond comprehension. Who do you think provides massive relief efforts when disasters happend? You are right that much goes on behind the scenes. Great acts of service. It may involve two people or two-hundred thousand. I've seen marvelous works of charity and goodwill touch the lives of many because of the strong faith of many LDS.



That's why I ended up liking Mormons.  They don't just talk about serving others, they actually do it.  And they don't run to the nearest television camera and talk about how great they are because of it.  They do the work and then they go home.

It's only because I asked that I found out that they were the first one into the Soviet Russia when it collapsed and people were without the basic necessities.


----------



## bio-chem (Feb 9, 2010)

Big Smoothy said:


> The persecution of Jews is not because of "working god" being unpopular.
> 
> It was because they worshipped a _different_ god.
> 
> ...



these posts right here are why people don't like you here at IM. you can't seem to follow a line of reasoning to the end. I think you confuse even yourself.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Feb 9, 2010)

DOMS said:


> That's why I ended up liking Mormons.  They don't just talk about serving others, they actually do it.  And they don't run to the nearest television camera and talk about how great they are because of it.  They do the work and then they go home.
> 
> It's only because I asked that I found out that they were the first one into the Soviet Russia when it collapsed and people were without the basic necessities.



Helping people is noble.  I highly respect it.

But why do Mormons go abroad to "help" people.

To spread their ideology - and grow their church.

Growth = power.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Feb 9, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> these posts right here are why people don't like you here at IM. you can't seem to follow a line of reasoning to the end. I think you confuse even yourself.




I respect your opinion,

But your thinking is off-base.

The topic of HIS post was, "worshipping god or gods being unpopular."

Then it was voting for Mormons.

Then, he added, "persecution."

Persecution does not = voting.

Big difference. Worthy of 2 separate threads, entirely.


----------



## bandaidwoman (Feb 9, 2010)

You know what is uncanny is the similarity between mormonism and islam.  

Both books  ( quaran and the book of mormons) essentially written by one author in a short period of time, I think  mohammed took 20 years to write the quaran  ( vs the old testament and new testament which were written over centuries with multiple authors) .  Both were visited by an angel, for mohammed it was gabriel for joseph smith another angel whose name escapes me and helps him write the book of mormon by finding some wierd gold tablets.Both are considered prophets, both share some polygomous aspects.

Just looking as an athiest outsider

I have never read the book of mormons but joseph smith being a son of migrant laborers may have produced an utterly spectacular piece of literary work which defied his background and so I can see why people felt god spoke through him.  It's like reading the first half of the quaran ( which I read in Malay) unbelievable literary beauty until you get to the second half with all the crappy minutae of laws.  No wonder people thought god spoke through him.  SImilar to the astoundingly beautiful "laments" when Isiah , Jerimiah, etc were "visited" by God in the Old Testament.  Of course I read the latter in Malay as well.  I think to read in the original arabic or hebrew is supposed to be even more spectacular.


----------



## bandaidwoman (Feb 9, 2010)

min0 lee said:


>





whats interesting is denmark which has had legal gay  marriages for a long long time the gays have 1/5 the divorce rate of heterosexuals and when it was legalized the birth rates went up and rates of heterosexual marriages went up as well.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/199705/lessons-gay-marriage

http://www.slate.com/id/2100884/

marriage has always been an economic or poltical union.  In this day and age where health insurance is assured among married spouses, adoption legalities favor a dual household, medical decision making falls on the spouse, inheritance rules are easier and cleaner between married spouses, it makes sense that gays want these same economic advantages as the heterosexuals.


----------



## GearsMcGilf (Feb 9, 2010)

Seriously, does anyone really care where the members of a sick sex cult, such as the mormon church, stand on this issue?


----------



## Dark Geared God (Feb 9, 2010)

The voters spoke..nuff said....


----------



## DOMS (Feb 9, 2010)

Roids1 said:


> Seriously, does anyone really care where the members of a sick sex cult, such as the mormon church, stand on this issue?



You mean a group of people that don't even allow for sex outside of marriage and that will kick you out of their church if you cheat on your spouse?

About this: you know jack.


----------



## bio-chem (Feb 9, 2010)

Roids1 said:


> Seriously, does anyone really care where the members of a sick sex cult, such as the mormon church, stand on this issue?



wait, why the hell do I believe in waiting till marriage if this is a sex cult? 

I'm not getting any damn it


----------



## KelJu (Feb 9, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> wait, why the hell do I believe in waiting till marriage if this is a sex cult?
> 
> I'm not getting any damn it



LDS took a sad turn when the Army busted in on Utah, and made them stop doing it.  


I want to ask a serious question, and no matter what you reply with, I swear I want make fun of or be a prick about it.

Do you believe that John Smith instituted polygamy, and if you believe he did, why did the LDS change their teachings only after faced with military occupation?


----------



## DOMS (Feb 9, 2010)

KelJu said:


> Do you believe that John Smith instituted polygamy, and if you believe he did, why did the LDS change their teachings only after faced with military occupation?



Ha!  I asked a member about this when I lived in Salt Lake.

She said that he instituted it because it was the only feasible way to take care of the women.  A lot of the men had been killed.

It's also not what I thought.  I thought it was a guy shaking up with a bunch of chicks.  It's turns out that's not the case.  If a guy had more than one wife, he had to provide a separate house for each.

And they stopped it because they felt that they had to do so to live the law of the land.  It's like Pirate posted: they believe in following the law.

That's what she told me, anyway.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 9, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> wait, why the hell do I believe in waiting till marriage if this is a sex cult?
> 
> I'm not getting any damn it



Not only that, but they won't even let their kids date until they're 16.

Besides, if it was a freaky sex cult, I'd be a card carrying member.


----------



## KelJu (Feb 9, 2010)

DOMS said:


> Ha!  I asked a member about this when I lived in Salt Lake.
> 
> She said that he instituted it because it was the only feasible way to take care of the women.  A lot of the men had been killed.
> 
> ...



I would have told her to her face that her explanation reeks of bullshit!


----------



## Big Smoothy (Feb 9, 2010)

bandaidwoman said:


> You know what is uncanny is the similarity between mormonism and islam.



"Religions" often borrow and even outright steal concepts.

_The Epic of Gilgamesh_ was written 3,000 years ago and concept (Great Flood) are in the Christian Old Testatment.  Zoroastrianism on Dec. 25th.



> Both were visited by an angel, for mohammed it was gabriel for joseph smith another angel whose name escapes me and helps him write the book of mormon



The Mormon angel is _Moroni._

This angel is on the top of almost all Mormon Temples.


Good point, Bandaidwoman.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Feb 9, 2010)

KelJu said:


> I would have told her to her face that her explanation reeks of bullshit!



That explanation isn't the same as others.

Josesph Smith was caught by his wife having an affair.  He then said that he was talking with god, and god told him, to paraphrase 'to spread his seed' and he came up with the Mormon doctrine of having multiple wives.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 9, 2010)

KelJu said:


> I would have told her to her face that her explanation reeks of bullshit!



I may have it wrong.  

But how is that bullshit?


----------



## Big Smoothy (Feb 9, 2010)

DOMS said:


> I may have it wrong.
> 
> But how is that bullshit?



Because there are other historical explanations.

Members often give the "official church" line.  Common with other religions.  But often, it's PR.


----------



## GearsMcGilf (Feb 9, 2010)

DOMS said:


> You mean a group of people that don't even allow for sex outside of marriage and that will kick you out of their church if you cheat on your spouse?
> 
> About this: you know jack.


 
Sorry if you're a mormon and were offended. But, I was referring to polygamy. I am aware that sex with a 14 year old girl, who is not one of your wives, is against the rules. But, whoever started this "religion" obviously had his own reasons for making the rules as they are.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 9, 2010)

Roids1 said:


> Sorry if you're a mormon and were offended. But, I was referring to polygamy. I am aware that sex with a 14 year old girl, who is not one of your wives, is against the rules. But, whoever started this "religion" obviously had his own reasons for making the rules as they are.



I'm not, but really, who would want more than just one wife?  Seriously...

My point is that the Mormons that I've met are about as far from "sex cult" as you can get.

You can't date until you're 16.
You can't have sex outside of marriage.
You can't have a three-way.

Those sorts of things.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Feb 9, 2010)

Roids1 said:


> But, whoever started this "religion" obviously had his own reasons for making the rules as they are.



His name was Joseph Smith.  

He was from upstate New York, and scammed people by offering a service to find water for property owne using willow sticks.

A couple of people in his home town made metal symbols from plates, and then buried them.  They then dug them out had Joseph Smith come and see them.  Smith then "interpreted" the plates.

These guys played a joke on him, and he proved himself to be a fraud.

There are other incidences about Joseph Smith that are locked up in the vault of Salt Lake.

_The Salamander Letter_

And documents about a conviction in New York state courts for fraud.

Smith died in a shoot-out.


----------



## bio-chem (Feb 9, 2010)

KelJu said:


> I want to ask a serious question, and no matter what you reply with, I swear I want make fun of or be a prick about it.






KelJu said:


> I would have told her to her face that her explanation reeks of bullshit!


----------



## bandaidwoman (Feb 10, 2010)

Big Smoothy said:


> "Religions" often borrow and even outright steal concepts.
> 
> _The Epic of Gilgamesh_ was written 3,000 years ago and concept (Great Flood) are in the Christian Old Testatment.  Zoroastrianism on Dec. 25th.
> .




Good point.  It's amazing that most religions don't realize this at all. The concept of virgin birth seems to be felt by most westerners to be a unique christian concept but it was a common theme in mystical buddism and hinduism , never to be taken literally, but was a symbolic way of conferring "god like status".  I think at one point the Greeks said Plato or socrates were a product of virgin births.  I remember reading the gospel of Mark or Pauls book ( can't remember what it was)  in Dalat school and reading that jesus had a brother james  and even sisters and possibley more brothers.  Mary didn't seem so virginal to me after that.



In fact, jesus's life and budda's were so compatible it was a buddist monk that converted my Taiwanese mom to christianity. He told her she could be a good buddist by conducting her life like Jesus. She had just met my American father and her monk felt that conversion would preserve their marriage upon return to the US.

http://samsonblinded.org/christianity/category/from-hinduism-and-buddhism

Of course,he did not know my father was Quaker, and they are universalists and not exlusionists like other christian sects.  ( Meaning she could have remained a buddist and still accepted the tenets of quakerism)


----------



## KelJu (Feb 10, 2010)

DOMS said:


> I may have it wrong.
> 
> But how is that bullshit?





Not the truth = Bullshit!

I honestly don't know why Smith decided to have many wives, but to help the poor single young ladies wasn't one of them. 


You can help someone without fucking them and making them have your children. Smith's own wife was appalled by the behavior and denied to everyone that he had many wives for years. It wasn't until her son took over the church that she admitted that he had 20 or more wives.


----------



## KelJu (Feb 10, 2010)

bio-chem said:


>



That's not fair, I was replying to the dumb shit that some lady told DOMS, not anything you said.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 10, 2010)

KelJu said:


> Not the truth = Bullshit!
> 
> I honestly don't know why Smith decided to have many wives, but to help the poor single young ladies wasn't one of them.
> 
> ...



See, this is where you show you don't really know much about them.

Joseph Smith's son never took over the church.  That's a spin off of their church.  The spin off people said that the *males heirs* had to run the church.  Of course, they changed their minds on this when there were no more males heirs.  Now it's a chick.

Have you ever actually read-up on Mormons?


----------



## KelJu (Feb 10, 2010)

bandaidwoman said:


> Good point.  It's amazing that most religions don't realize this at all. The concept of virgin birth seems to be felt by most westerners to be a unique christian concept but it was a common theme in mystical buddism and hinduism , never to be taken literally, but was a symbolic way of conferring "god like status".  I think at one point the Greeks said Plato or socrates were a product of virgin births.  I remember reading the gospel of Mark or Pauls book ( can't remember what it was)  in Dalat school and reading that jesus had a brother james  and even sisters and possibley more brothers.  Mary didn't seem so virginal to me after that.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I like the Quakers a lot. They were very interesting people.


----------



## bio-chem (Feb 10, 2010)

KelJu said:


> That's not fair, I was replying to the dumb shit that some lady told DOMS, not anything you said.



no, dude it's absolutely fair. we've got a couple of people on here posting some ridiculous stuff about mormons because they just plain don't know and have decided to cut and paste from an anti-mormon website or something. Then there is DOMS who isn't LDS, but has spent some time learning a bit about the faith. The second he posts something trying to explain what his understanding is you call bullshit. 

Polygamy is not an easy thing to understand. And as a LDS man I'm thankful that it is no longer practiced. I have enough trouble keeping one mormon woman happy. I wouldn't even want to try multiple.

The idea put forth by ignorants that Joseph Smith instituted polygamy because he wanted to go around fucking is as offensive as it is stupid. Just as with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, Joseph Smith's life was made more difficult because of this practice. This was not something instituted because he was some sort of sex fiend on a power trip.

From the outside this is an easy subject to pick on. I can completely see why non-mormons would instantly look at this and scream cult. what it comes down to is whether an individual is willing to take the time to learn and understand. To understand polygamy you have to understand Joseph Smith as a prophet. to understand joseph smith as a prophet you have to understand the Book of Mormon as scripture.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 10, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> Then there is DOMS who isn't LDS, but has spent some time learning a bit about the faith.



One of the big takeaways that I got from living around Mormons is this: they don't talk shit about anyone else.  So many other religions, including Christians, love to put down anyone and anything that doesn't meat up to their standards.  I'm not talking about the rank and file, I'm talking about the leaders.  Mormon leaders don't say shit about others.

The only reason that they got involved in Prop 8 was the reason that I stated previously.  And that was because some gays were going around and suing churches for not performing marriages for them.  So they forced the Mormons to do something to protect themselves.


----------



## NeilPearson (Feb 10, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons Fastest-Growing 'Churches' in U.S. | Christianpost.com



So you lied... this article says it is the second fastest growing faith.

And it is percentage wise so it's wrong.  The cult of Neil had one member last year (me) and this year I offically got my first follower so I have a 100% increase which makes my religion faster growing than both the JW's and LDS.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 10, 2010)

NeilPearson said:


> So you lied... this article says it is the second fastest growing faith.
> 
> And it is percentage wise so it's wrong.  The cult of Neil had one member last year (me) and this year I offically got my first follower so I have a 100% increase which makes my religion faster growing than both the JW's and LDS.



Does your religion allow three-ways?  Do you provide the women if I join up?  Will there be doughnuts?


----------



## NeilPearson (Feb 10, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> Mormon theology video's? such as? when it's produced by another sect of Christianity I wouldn't consider it a Mormon theology video. lol.
> 
> there are plenty of LDS beliefs that are unpopular. then again when has faith in God ever been popular? *there is nothing in the LDS church that is hidden*. ask a question about any LDS doctrine and I'm sure you will get a straight answer.



So if I am thinking about joining up, I can go to any temple in Utah and watch any ceremony I want in order to learn more about it?

Like any good cult, the truly weird and twisted beliefs are kept secret, behind locked doors and are only shared with the higher up people


----------



## NeilPearson (Feb 10, 2010)

DOMS said:


> Does your religion allow three-ways?  Do you provide the women if I join up?  Will there be doughnuts?



My religion allows anything as long as it is consentual and doesn't hurt others.

I can't provide the women but I could provide doughnuts


----------



## tucker01 (Feb 10, 2010)

NeilPearson said:


> My religion allows anything as long as it is consentual and doesn't hurt others.
> 
> I can't provide the women but I could provide doughnuts



God-damn Canadians never forget about there doughnuts.


----------



## DaMayor (Feb 10, 2010)

Pope: So, you're not Catholic?

Catholic Church alone is one, true church, says Vatican congregation - Catholic Online


We're all wrong....according to the Pope, only Catholics can enter the Kingdom of Heaven. The rest of us are just a truckload of wanna-be's.


----------



## bio-chem (Feb 10, 2010)

NeilPearson said:


> So if I am thinking about joining up, I can go to any temple in Utah and watch any ceremony I want in order to learn more about it?
> 
> Like any good cult, the truly weird and twisted beliefs are kept secret, behind locked doors and are only shared with the higher up people



LOL. before a temple is dedicated it is open to the public. mormon or non-mormon anyone is allowed to walk through the temple. 

there is nothing in the temple that goes on that isn't public knowledge


----------



## DOMS (Feb 10, 2010)

NeilPearson said:


> So if I am thinking about joining up, I can go to any temple in Utah and watch any ceremony I want in order to learn more about it?
> 
> Like any good cult, the truly weird and twisted beliefs are kept secret, behind locked doors and are only shared with the higher up people



I asked what they do in the temples.  It's not a secret. 

They do baptisms for the dead and they get married there.  You can even look this up on the Interweb from people that hate that church.

The reason that just not anyone can walk in is because it's a place they go to commune with God and they don't want some random person from blowing the spiritual mood.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 10, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> LOL. before a temple is dedicated it is open to the public. mormon or non-mormon anyone is allowed to walk through the temple.
> 
> there is nothing in the temple that goes on that isn't public knowledge



You beat me to it.  Now I have to hate you.  I lost at the Internet.


----------



## bio-chem (Feb 10, 2010)

DaMayor said:


> Pope: So, you're not Catholic?
> 
> Catholic Church alone is one, true church, says Vatican congregation - Catholic Online
> 
> ...


my gosh this is such a non-story


----------



## DOMS (Feb 10, 2010)

IainDaniel said:


> God-damn Canadians never forget about there doughnuts.



The Canadian Religion?

*sigh*

I tried to find something funny that combined Canada and religion to post, but I found nothing.

So, instead, you get this:






YouTube Video


----------



## DOMS (Feb 10, 2010)

DaMayor said:


> Pope: So, you're not Catholic?
> 
> Catholic Church alone is one, true church, says Vatican congregation - Catholic Online
> 
> ...



I see you that and I raise you this:

Only 144,000 Jahovah's are gonna make it into heaven (or at all).


----------



## bio-chem (Feb 10, 2010)

DOMS said:


> You beat me to it.  Now I have to hate you.  I lost at the Internet.


dude, you always crack me up. trust that i am but an amateur in your world, just trying to keep up


----------



## DaMayor (Feb 10, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> my gosh this is such a non-story



Oh, so it is only important if *YOU *post it, eh? Belittling DaMayor's comments? Okay. Okay. Alrighty then. 

After all.....when we get down to it....*It's all about bio-chem, isn't it?*


----------



## bio-chem (Feb 10, 2010)

DaMayor said:


> Oh, so it is only important if *YOU *post it, eh? Belittling DaMayor's comments? Okay. Okay. Alrighty then.
> 
> After all.....when we get down to it....*It's all about bio-chem, isn't it?*



well.....yea 


lol


----------



## KelJu (Feb 10, 2010)

DOMS said:


> See, this is where you show you don't really know much about them.
> 
> Joseph Smith's son never took over the church.  That's a spin off of their church.  The spin off people said that the *males heirs* had to run the church.  Of course, they changed their minds on this when there were no more males heirs.  Now it's a chick.
> 
> Have you ever actually read-up on Mormons?



Articles here and there, and a few documentaries. I am no theologian or expert on Mormons. I feel confident that I know as much about LDS as you know about Islam.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 10, 2010)

KelJu said:


> Articles here and there, and a few documentaries. I am no theologian or expert on Mormons. I feel confident that I know as much about LDS as you know about Islam.



I *highly* doubt it.

Have you read the book of Moron?  No?  Well, I've read parts of the Qur'an.  I've gone to many pro-Muslim sites looking for insight into who they are.

Just because I don't like Muslims doesn't mean that I have tried to.


----------



## maniclion (Feb 10, 2010)

I've watched a couple episodes of Big Love when I was too lazy to change the channel, I am now an expert....


----------



## Big Smoothy (Feb 10, 2010)

How interesting.

The topic of the thread is not about Mormon theology and beliefs, anymore.

How convenient.


----------



## DaMayor (Feb 10, 2010)

*ATTENTION. MAY I HAVE YOUR ATTENTION PLEASE......*
*PLEASE RETURN TO THE ORIGINAL TOPIC. BIG SMOOTHY IS GETTING HIS THONG IN A KNOT. WHILE THIS IS HARD TO BELIEVE, FURTHER WEDGING OF BIG SMOOTHY'S BUTT FLOSS IS APPARENTLY POSSIBLE.*

THANK YOU.


----------



## bio-chem (Feb 10, 2010)

maniclion said:


> I've watched a couple episodes of Big Love when I was too lazy to change the channel, I am now an expert....



LOL'd


----------



## bio-chem (Feb 10, 2010)

Big Smoothy said:


> How interesting.
> 
> The topic of the thread is not about Mormon theology and beliefs, anymore.
> 
> How convenient.



the original topic was never about mormon theology or beliefs. you've witnessed the power of the internet. discussions moving in different directions


----------



## Big Smoothy (Feb 10, 2010)

No one has answered this question:

Mormons believe Jesus Christ went to the current day USA and tried to convert the Native Americans after being crucified and resurrection. 

Does anyone agree with this?


----------



## bio-chem (Feb 10, 2010)

Big Smoothy said:


> No one has answered this question:
> 
> Mormons believe Jesus Christ went to the current day USA and tried to convert the Native Americans after being crucified and resurrection.
> 
> Does anyone agree with this?



I would use different language, but the basis of what you are saying I agree with


----------



## Big Smoothy (Feb 10, 2010)

^ Thanks for the response, bio.

I am not here to "bash" Mormonism, but ask questions. I know a guy who converted, and he firmly believe Jesus Christ came to present day American tried to convert the Native Americans.


----------



## bio-chem (Feb 11, 2010)

Big Smoothy said:


> ^ Thanks for the response, bio.
> 
> I am not here to "bash" Mormonism, but ask questions. I know a guy who converted, and he firmly believe Jesus Christ came to present day American tried to convert the Native Americans.



and why would it be so difficult to believe that Christ would take the time to visit other people once his mortal mission was complete amongst the Jews? I figure Christians would readily accept this fact


----------



## DaMayor (Feb 11, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> and why would it be so difficult to believe that Christ would take the time to visit other people once his mortal mission was complete amongst the Jews? I figure Christians would readily accept this fact



 My question is this....Why would Christ have visited only those who were _here_ (meaning America) ? Are there any other writings or accounts of his doing the same in other parts of the world?


----------



## bandaidwoman (Feb 11, 2010)

DaMayor said:


> My question is this....Why would Christ have visited only those who were _here_ (meaning America) ? Are there any other writings or accounts of his doing the same in other parts of the world?




My fathers family is quaker and we would talk about this all the time at our meetings ( they dont have sermons, we all sit around and argue in a friendly manner).  

You know many, but not all, Quakers, view the doctrine of Jesus' and the virgin birth as nonessential and not accepted as fact. 
They, like the sufi muslims, view all religions and beliefs as correct and sometimes of equal value.  They regard Jesus as a "guiding light" in which to conduct yourself, but we can argue that of Buddah, heck Ghandi etc etc.  Many of the quakers felt Jesus revieled himself to other cultures under different disguises when he became a "personal" God.  This is different from the "distant" gods of past polytheism.  

After all,  a short, hairy middle eastern Jewish guy just wasn't going to win over the xenophobic Chinese thousands of years ago.....but buddah........

If you like talking about all this stuff, go to a quaker meeting.   It's never dull, and there is no preaching, we debate affirmative action, nuclear proliferation, antisemitism,feminists etc.  The great thing is , many other religions sit in ( muslims, buddists, hindis) since they are accepted by us.  They don't prosthetize, but they can educate you on their religion.  

Now you see why these guys were thrown out of europe


----------



## bio-chem (Feb 11, 2010)

DaMayor said:


> My question is this....Why would Christ have visited only those who were _here_ (meaning America) ? Are there any other writings or accounts of his doing the same in other parts of the world?



While we don't have those accounts I believe they exist. 

While I was in the Philippines they told me of an oral tradition that they have where a man came down out of the sky and taught them. they point to this as where they learned to make the banaue rice terraces. I'm not so presumptive to tell people this was Christ, but many places have such traditions. we've all heard the story of Quetzalcoatl for instance.

John 10:16 says:
 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

Christ never traveled more than 50 miles from his birth place while in mortality.  His ministry traveled to only the Jews. Is it so hard for Christians to believe that Christ needed to teach all people?

Mark 16:16 says:
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Billions of people who have lived have never even heard the name of Christ to believe let alone been baptized. I can't imagine a just God damning these people. Especially at the time of Christ when those who could have heard his name were in such a small geographical location as Judea. It somehow makes sense to me that Christ would want to visit all people so that they may be his children.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Feb 11, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> and why would it be so difficult to believe that Christ would take the time to visit other people once his mortal mission was complete amongst the Jews? I figure Christians would readily accept this fact



When was this first written about?

When was this first recorded as a historical fact?

How many years, later?

Waiting for your response.


----------



## maniclion (Feb 11, 2010)

There are stories that Jesus went to India and learned a little about Buddhism, maybe those are the "Indians" he visited....


----------



## KelJu (Feb 11, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> and why would it be so difficult to believe that Christ would take the time to visit other people once his mortal mission was complete amongst the Jews? I figure Christians would readily accept this fact



Lol, ask the Native Americans how they feel about that.


----------



## bio-chem (Feb 11, 2010)

KelJu said:


> Lol, ask the Native Americans how they feel about that.



my first girlfriend after i got back from the Philippines was Navajo. she didn't seem to mind so much


----------



## bio-chem (Feb 11, 2010)

Big Smoothy said:


> When was this first written about?
> 
> When was this first recorded as a historical fact?
> 
> ...



I have no intention of proving the book of mormon to you. go somewhere else for that. read it and learn for yourself, or don't, I really could care less.  there is your response.


----------



## DaMayor (Feb 11, 2010)

KelJu said:


> Lol, ask the Native Americans how they feel about that.



Well, i think the question would be..How many Native Americans (or their descendants) are Mormon?


----------



## Big Smoothy (Feb 11, 2010)

bio-chem,

Thanks for the response.  Fair enough.  

Without re-hashing too much, my point is:

Joseph Smith was not talking with god, IMO.

The current President of the Mormon church becomes President from the political wrangling among the "Council of Elders."

The Presidents of the Mormon church claim they "talk with god."

I don't believe this.

But time to move onward.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 11, 2010)

Big Smoothy said:


> Joseph Smith was not talking with god, *IMO*.



Opinions are like you...wait, I meant "assholes", but you see how I can make that mistake.


----------



## KelJu (Feb 11, 2010)

DaMayor said:


> Well, i think the question would be..How many Native Americans (or their descendants) are Mormon?



Very few. The Native Americans are human, and they are just as perverted as anybody else. 

They were were weak, and they were taken over. So is the nature of of humanity.


----------



## bio-chem (Feb 11, 2010)

Big Smoothy said:


> bio-chem,
> 
> Thanks for the response.  Fair enough.
> 
> ...



considering there are 13 million and change LDS members and 6.8 billion people in the world you are not alone. congratulations you are now one of the sheeple you detest.

listen people don't get your panties in a bunch, i only said it to help prove my point that i could really care less what BS's beliefs are about my religion. to those of you who have respectfully asked questions and shared thoughts pro or con thank you i appreciate it.


----------



## Pirate! (Feb 11, 2010)

DaMayor said:


> Well, i think the question would be..How many Native Americans (or their descendants) are Mormon?



This is the fastest growing population with the LDS. The tradition of a Bearded White God visiting and teaching is an common theme within the oral  tradition (history) of most of the ancient cultures. 

Here is a decent article on the issue: White and Bearded God


----------



## Big Smoothy (Feb 11, 2010)

DOMS said:


> Opinions are like you...wait, I meant "assholes", but you see how I can make that mistake.



As usual DOMS, you don't contribute to a thread because you don't have the knowledge.  

You make short statements and generalizations offering little insight.

Carry on.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Feb 11, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> considering there are 13 million and change LDS members and 6.8 billion people in the world you are not alone. congratulations you are now one of the sheeple you detest.



Yes, I can be a part of the sheeple at times.  I try to mentally deconstruct information that I come across.  I try to be aware.



> listen people don't get your panties in a bunch, i only said it to help prove my point that i could really care less what BS's beliefs are about my religion. to those of you who have respectfully asked questions and shared thoughts pro or con thank you i appreciate it.



I am not trying to be too harsh on this religion or others.  

I have asked several Mormons what happened to the Gold Plates that Joseph Smith found.  

Where are they?


----------



## bio-chem (Feb 11, 2010)

Big Smoothy said:


> I have asked several Mormons what happened to the Gold Plates that Joseph Smith found.
> Where are they?



The Angel Moroni who originally gave them to Joseph Smith collected them from Joseph. But if you've asked several Mormons this question then you already know that. what are you really getting at?


----------



## Big Smoothy (Feb 11, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> The Angel Moroni who originally gave them to Joseph Smith collected them from Joseph. But if you've asked several Mormons this question then you already know that. what are you really getting at?



You state that Moroni collected them from Joseph.  But where are the plates, now?


----------



## Pirate! (Feb 12, 2010)

Big Smoothy said:


> You state that Moroni collected them from Joseph.  But where are the plates, now?



Nobody knows, but many witnesses swore until their dying day that they saw or handled them. Some swear that an angel attended their session with Joseph and the plates. Their signed statements are in the intro of the BOM. What is your agenda, Big Smoothy? Nobody expects you to believe what Mormons believe. You ask questions without seeking the truth. You are like the pharrassies asking questions with the sole purpose of trying to trap someone in their words.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Feb 12, 2010)

Pirate! said:


> Nobody knows.....



Thank you.  "Nobody knows."



> You ask questions without seeking the truth.



I AM, seeking the truth.



> You are like the pharrassies asking questions with the sole purpose of trying to trap someone in their words.



I am only asking, because I want an answer.


----------



## DaMayor (Feb 12, 2010)

Big Smoothy said:


> You state that Moroni collected them from Joseph.  But where are the plates, now?



That's like asking where the remains of the stone tablets on which the Ten Commandments were written  are.

......Moses and Joseph prolly share a safety deposit box somewhere. Their stuff is packed away with the Holy Grail.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Feb 12, 2010)

^ Thank you, Da Mayor.

The answer is "He doesn't know." 

Nobody does.


----------



## DaMayor (Feb 12, 2010)

Big Smoothy said:


> ^ Thank you, Da Mayor.
> 
> The answer is "He doesn't know."
> 
> Nobody does.



Well, just because Bio-chem is well versed in his choice of religion....ya can't expect the man to be the consummate historian on the subject. 

*Faith=Believing in the unseen.*


----------



## Big Smoothy (Feb 12, 2010)

^ Almost every Mormon I've talked with (except bio-chem) has given the following standard answer.

"We don't know.  It's a test of faith."

However, one Mormon told me the plates were in "Heaven."


----------



## bandaidwoman (Feb 12, 2010)

according to my hindu friends all these folks are just avatars anyway  of the supreme being ( jesus, mohamed, buddah, joseph smith, the Bahai twin prophets, the philipino descent that instructed them on how to make their life sustaining bread, the old testament prophets,the twelve headed snake blah blah blah


----------



## bio-chem (Feb 12, 2010)

Big Smoothy said:


> ^ Almost every Mormon I've talked with (except bio-chem) has given the following standard answer.
> 
> "We don't know.  It's a test of faith."
> 
> However, one Mormon told me the plates were in "Heaven."



The Angel Moroni collected them from Joseph. What he did with them doesn't matter. I'm not privy to the comings and goings of Angels. Where their physical presence is currently doesn't matter.


----------



## DaMayor (Feb 12, 2010)

Big Smoothy said:


> ^ Almost every Mormon I've talked with (except bio-chem) has given the following standard answer.
> 
> "We don't know.  It's a test of faith."
> 
> However, one Mormon told me the plates were in "Heaven."



Well, *all *religions are based on faith. However, I must say that those who live by the concept of Faith alone, without seeking knowledge or attempting to understand the origin or instruction of one's creator might not be too logical. You have to go beyond, "because the Bible tells me so", and make an attempt to understand "why" and "how" the Bible tells you so. This would apply to other religions as well, of course.
As far as the "the plates are in Heaven" response...that may be what Mormons are taught...I really don't know. Either way, the general and perhaps groundless statements by one member of any particular belief system cannot be held against the whole.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Feb 12, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> What he did with them doesn't matter. I'm not privy to the comings and goings of Angels. Where their physical presence is currently doesn't matter.



I think it does matter.


----------



## bio-chem (Feb 12, 2010)

Big Smoothy said:


> I think it does matter.



state your case then


----------



## Big Smoothy (Feb 12, 2010)

^ I already did.

But...to state my case again:

Because you do NOT know where these plates are,

*THEY NEVER EXISTED.*


----------



## DaMayor (Feb 12, 2010)

Big Smoothy;1962310
[B said:
			
		

> THEY NEVER EXISTED.[/b]



That's a Medieval lack of Object Permanence, lol. Imagine where we would be if science applied the same philosophy...would then, electrons,bacteria, and DNA not exist?


----------



## bio-chem (Feb 12, 2010)

Big Smoothy said:


> ^ I already did.
> 
> But...to state my case again:
> 
> ...




so Joseph Smith came up with the Book of Mormon on his own?


I could place the actual gold plates physically in your lap right now and it would change nothing. Having them on display at temple square in Salt Lake City wouldn't prove anything, and it wouldn't convince anyone of Joseph Smith being a prophet or not. You obviously don't understand the nature of man if you are trying to make that claim.


----------



## bio-chem (Feb 12, 2010)

DaMayor said:


> That's a Medieval lack of Object Permanence, lol. Imagine where we would be if science applied the same philosophy...would then, electrons,bacteria, and DNA not exist?



i've been prevented from repping you like 4 times in this thread because i have to spread it around first


----------



## DaMayor (Feb 12, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> i've been prevented from repping you like 4 times in this thread because i have to spread it around first



 No, problem....(assuming you mean positive reps, lol) I'm the middle guy in this one. If things get too bad...I do have an ace in the hole that could seriously distract this topic, lol.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Feb 12, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> so Joseph Smith came up with the Book of Mormon on his own?



Joseph Smith was a fraud, Mate.  He died in a shoot-out.



> I could place the actual gold plates physically in your lap right now and it would change nothing.



It would change EVERYTHING.

Then, I, we, and the rest of the world would have evidence, that these gold plates, existed.




> Having them on display at temple square in Salt Lake City wouldn't prove anything



In my opinion, it would.


> and it wouldn't convince anyone of Joseph Smith being a prophet or not.



Yes, it would.


Peace, to you.


----------



## DaMayor (Feb 12, 2010)

Dang. That's it? Aw, snap...I didn't even get to play my ace.


----------



## bio-chem (Feb 12, 2010)

Big Smoothy said:


> Joseph Smith was a fraud, Mate.  He died in a shoot-out.
> 
> It would change EVERYTHING.
> 
> ...



Like I said, you don't understand human nature. 

If you consider a mob breaking into a jail and murdering Joseph Smith and his brother a shootout then sure.  how exactly does dieing in a "shoot-out" make one a fraud? your reasoning lacks something 

Holding the gold plates doesn't prove Joseph Smith to be a Prophet and it doesn't prove the Book of Mormon to be the word of God. The only thing that can do that is actually reading and praying about the Book of Mormon.

If you want to believe that there were no Gold plates and Joseph came up with the Book of Mormon out of his own head that would be an even more astounding story. (wouldn't make him a prophet, but still an amazing story) I find divine intervention to be a much more probable explanation than an uneducated boy making this stuff up. But then again I've actually read the book. I know what it says. 

It's pretty easy to see that human nature would be to call the plates a hoax or a fraud even if they were placed on display out in the open for all to see. All the physical evidence one needs is found in the presence of The Book of Mormon itself.

I'm surprised and even a little disappointed in you. I would expect something a little more than "where are the gold plates now?"


----------



## bio-chem (Feb 12, 2010)

DaMayor said:


> Dang. That's it? Aw, snap...I didn't even get to play my ace.



I'm so sorry to disappoint. you can play it now and we will pretend that it is still good


----------



## Pirate! (Feb 12, 2010)

Shoot out? Did you get all your facts from that South Park episode?


----------



## bio-chem (Feb 12, 2010)

Pirate! said:


> Shoot out? Did you get all your facts from that South Park episode?



seriously though, that episode was funny.


----------



## bandaidwoman (Feb 12, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> If you want to believe that there were no Gold plates and Joseph came up with the Book of Mormon out of his own head that would be an even more astounding story. (wouldn't make him a prophet, but still an amazing story) I find divine intervention to be a much more probable explanation than an uneducated boy making this stuff up. But then again I've actually read the book. I know what it says.



You know they use the same argument for the quaran?  It's unbelievable that such a voluminous literary masterpiece came from one man?  Having ready the quaran ( much easier read then than the old and new testament ( more poetic in it rythem)  I can see why those who believe in a god thought so.  I have no doubt the book of mormons is impressive as well.  Just as joseph was the son of migrant workers mohammed was supposidly illiterate, during a vicious, warring tribal society (  in the end he united them) and still able to produce such a scholarly work. I'm sure though both got some help, but that is my belief. Unless, both were just genius sauvants........I'm telling you, the mormons and muslims are very similar, the "time of prophets" did not end with Jesus, it persisted long afte for both religions.  As an asian, I never saw Mormonism as a form of christianity, a typical person in China would probably not even guess it is considered a christian sect.


----------



## Hoglander (Feb 12, 2010)

CaptRichArund and bandaidwoman if born 2000 years ago.... well the world would be a better place.


----------



## bio-chem (Feb 12, 2010)

bandaidwoman said:


> You know they use the same argument for the quaran?  It's unbelievable that such a voluminous literary masterpiece came from one man?  Having ready the quaran ( much easier read then than the old and new testament ( more poetic in it rythem)  I can see why those who believe in a god thought so.  I have no doubt the book of mormons is impressive as well.  Just as joseph was the son of migrant workers mohammed was supposidly illiterate, during a vicious, warring tribal society (  in the end he united them) and still able to produce such a scholarly work. I'm sure though both got some help, but that is my belief. Unless, both were just genius sauvants........I'm telling you, the mormons and muslims are very similar, the "time of prophets" did not end with Jesus, it persisted long afte for both religions.  As an asian, I never saw Mormonism as a form of christianity, a typical person in China would probably not even guess it is considered a christian sect.



I found the Quaran to be about on par with the old testament for ease of reading personally. Some of it I thought was rather interesting. some not so much. my concern with Islam is the same problem with much of Christianity. different sects without clear leadership allows men  to twist the word of God for their own desires.


----------



## Dark Geared God (Feb 12, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> i've been prevented from repping you like 4 times in this thread because i have to spread it around first


 
then spread it around...


----------



## Big Smoothy (Feb 12, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> Like I said, you don't understand human nature.
> *
> If you consider a mob breaking into a jail and murdering Joseph Smith and his brother a shootout then sure.  how exactly does dieing in a "shoot-out" make one a fraud? your reasoning lacks something*



I NEVER said Joseph Smith was a fraud because he died in a shoot-out.

I believe he's a fraud because:

1. He charged people money to find water on people's property using willow sticks that didn't work.

2. He practiced folk magic

3. The _Salamander Letter_ - something Mormons _don't talk about._

4. Saying god told him to "spread his seed" after his wife caught him in an affair - hence the polygamy of Mormonism.

5. Being duped by locals in upstate New York that made fake metal plates, buried tham, dug them back up, and called Smith, who "translated and interpreted" those fake plates.

6. Many more.......


----------



## bio-chem (Feb 12, 2010)

Big Smoothy said:


> Joseph Smith was a fraud, Mate.  He died in a shoot-out.





Big Smoothy said:


> I NEVER said Joseph Smith was a fraud because he died in a shoot-out.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Feb 12, 2010)

^ My statement is correct and what I said about it, is correct.

Now, we're down to semantics.  This is what happens what people cannot debate.

Again,

I believe Joseph Smith was a fraud.  He died in a shoot-tou.

But he was a fraud, not because of dying in shoot-out.

I have provided a _limited and incomplete list in my above post._


----------



## bio-chem (Feb 12, 2010)

Big Smoothy said:


> I NEVER said Joseph Smith was a fraud because he died in a shoot-out.
> 
> I believe he's a fraud because:
> 
> ...



well all of these are pretty asinine accusations, but i'm willing to talk about any of them if you bring up something of note.

#1,#2. really? did you get this from a 3rd grader

#3- I particularly like the Salamander letter reference. Mormons know all about it. We don't talk about it because talking about a forged, worthless document doesn't do anything, but I like how you keep bringing it up like it is some big deal. LOL. even Anti-Mormons don't bring up the Salamander letter anymore. this made note in the 80's. you are 20 years of Mormon bashing behind dude.

#4 at some point you are really going to have to do your own research on all of this if you want to come off as hard hitting. copy and paste shows you are just unprepared.

#5 LOL'd again, anyone who has actually cracked open the Book of Mormon and read half a page knows that this is absurd.


I've got to admit that this is really turning into an exercise of the ridiculous. You know if DOMS, Mino or LW had something against the Mormons this might actually turn into a real discussion. Those 3 actually research what they are attacking. you can throw Kelju in that list as well, maybe a few others. With you it's like explaining something to a small petulant child. I've got to try to remember to use small words and repeat myself often.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Feb 13, 2010)

Let's move onto another topic, regarding Mormonism.

*Race.*

What is the Mormon doctrine black people?

bio-chem?


----------



## bandaidwoman (Feb 13, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> my concern with Islam is the same problem with much of Christianity. different sects without clear leadership allows men  to twist the word of God for their own desires.



Yes, I totally agree with tou on that


----------



## Big Smoothy (Feb 13, 2010)

^ OT, briefly, bandaid woman.

I'll have to make a visa run from Vietnam in late April and I want to go to Malaysia.  Lots of beauty.  I'd like to check out KL for a couple of day (I've been there before) and then head for some nice areas.

Any tips on some nice areas in Malaysia.  I am told there are many.


----------



## bio-chem (Feb 13, 2010)

Big Smoothy said:


> Let's move onto another topic, regarding Mormonism.
> 
> *Race.*
> 
> ...



we've already covered that there are temples in Africa and we have black members. Ask a more specific question and you'll get a more specific answer.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Feb 13, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> we've already covered that there are temples in Africa and we have black members. Ask a more specific question and you'll get a more specific answer.



OK, I will.

Be ready.

Do a few black members change what the Mormon "god said?"


----------



## bio-chem (Feb 13, 2010)

Big Smoothy said:


> OK, I will.
> 
> Be ready.
> 
> Do a few black members change what the Mormon "god said?"



ok, im ready.

your're going to have to be a bit more specific. God has said many things. by the way He is the God of everyone. Not just the Mormons. It would be pretty presumptive of us if he was only our God.


----------



## DaMayor (Feb 13, 2010)

Big Smoothy said:


> OK, I will.
> 
> Be ready.
> 
> Do a few black members change what the Mormon "god said?"



Please allow me to introduce myself 
I'm a man of wealth and taste 
I've been around for a long, long year 
Stole many a man's soul and faith 

And I was 'round when Jesus Christ 
Had his moment of doubt and pain 
Made damn sure that Pilate 
Washed his hands and sealed his fate 

Pleased to meet you 
Hope you guess my name


I'm starting to think they were singing "smoo-smooth, smoo-smooth" instead of "woo woo" in the background, lol.


----------



## bio-chem (Feb 13, 2010)

DaMayor said:


> Please allow me to introduce myself
> I'm a man of wealth and taste
> I've been around for a long, long year
> Stole many a man's soul and faith
> ...


nicely done  love the lyrical reference


----------



## Dark Geared God (Feb 13, 2010)

DaMayor said:


> Please allow me to introduce myself
> I'm a man of wealth and taste
> I've been around for a long, long year
> Stole many a man's soul and faith
> ...


----------



## Big Smoothy (Feb 13, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> ok, im ready.
> 
> your're going to have to be a bit more specific. God has said many things. by the way He is the God of everyone. Not just the Mormons. It would be pretty presumptive of us if he was only our God.



This, is the god of "everyone," according to bio-chem.  



> Elder MARK E. PETERSON
> 
> Race Problems -- As They Affect The Church
> Convention of Teachers of Religion on the College Level,
> ...



Link & Entire: Mormon racism in perspective

The "Prophet" Joseph Smith:


> blood regularly to the hospital in the hope that the process might be accelerated.
> JOSPEH FIELDING SMITH
> Doctrines of Salvation, pp. 65-66.
> 
> ...



Nice religion you have, bio-chem and Pirate.

Shall I post more?

http://www.lds-mormon.com/racism.shtml


----------



## danzik17 (Feb 13, 2010)

Are you REALLY criticizing bio-chem/Pirate while having a swastika in your sig?

I'm normally pretty civil and like a good argument, but you're a fucking douchebag right now.  Have some class.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Feb 14, 2010)

danzik17 said:


> Are you REALLY criticizing bio-chem/Pirate while having a swastika in your sig?
> 
> I'm normally pretty civil and like a good argument, but you're a fucking douchebag right now.  Have some class.




the swastika on the Israeli flag, replacing the star of David, is a symbolic comment regarding the policies of the nation-state of Israel.


----------



## bandaidwoman (Feb 14, 2010)

Big Smoothy said:


> ^ OT, briefly, bandaid woman.
> 
> I'll have to make a visa run from Vietnam in late April and I want to go to Malaysia.  Lots of beauty.  I'd like to check out KL for a couple of day (I've been there before) and then head for some nice areas.
> 
> Any tips on some nice areas in Malaysia.  I am told there are many.



I envy you., can't miss the jungle canopy hike in our beautiful Teman  Negara Park 
Malaysia jungle canopy walk | Teman Negara National Park

Too bad you just missed the Thaipusam  Indian festival, unbelievable . There is a cave temple near KL called Batu caves you may want to check out. 


I grew up in Penang, and Island off the western part of the Malaysian Peninsula, beautiful!!!!!!


----------



## Big Smoothy (Feb 14, 2010)

bandaidwoman said:


> I envy you., can't miss the jungle canopy hike in our beautiful Teman  Negara Park
> Malaysia jungle canopy walk | Teman Negara National Park
> 
> Too bad you just missed the Thaipusam  Indian festival, unbelievable . There is a cave temple near KL called Batu caves you may want to check out.
> ...




I've been to Penang two times.  I enjoyed the place.  I remember the cable car to the top of the mountain.

Thanks for the info, Bandaidwoman, I'll keep you posted!

I'll do the research.  Cheers!!


----------



## NeilPearson (Feb 16, 2010)

DaMayor said:


> Pope: So, you're not Catholic?
> 
> Catholic Church alone is one, true church, says Vatican congregation - Catholic Online
> 
> ...




The Pope is the Devil


----------



## NeilPearson (Feb 16, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> LOL. before a temple is dedicated it is open to the public. mormon or non-mormon anyone is allowed to walk through the temple.
> 
> there is nothing in the temple that goes on that isn't public knowledge



So you are saying that they do the really twisted stuff after it is dedicated, when it is no longer open to the public?


----------



## NeilPearson (Feb 16, 2010)

DOMS said:


> I see you that and I raise you this:
> 
> Only 144,000 Jahovah's are gonna make it into heaven (or at all).



Yeah they believe 144,000 go to heaven... the rest get to live immortally forever on earth.  After all, God originally designed the Earth for people to live on and to live forever.  It was Adam and Eve that screwed that up.  Their belief is God is just restoring his original plan.  Why should God change his original plan for man and the Earth just because the devil was fucking with him


----------



## NeilPearson (Feb 16, 2010)

Big Smoothy said:


> ^ Thanks for the response, bio.
> 
> I am not here to "bash" Mormonism, but ask questions. I know a guy who converted, and he firmly believe Jesus Christ came to present day American tried to convert the Native Americans.



... like Jesus would give a shit about Indians


----------



## Big Smoothy (Feb 16, 2010)

NeilPearson said:


> Yeah they believe 144,000 go to heaven... the rest get to live immortally forever on earth.



Yes, I've read this too about the JW's.

Another reason why I don't believe in organized religion of any sort.


----------



## bio-chem (Feb 17, 2010)

NeilPearson said:


> So you are saying that they do the really twisted stuff after it is dedicated, when it is no longer open to the public?



what part of "there is nothing that goes on in the temple that isn't part of public knowledge" don't you understand?


----------



## bio-chem (Feb 17, 2010)

danzik17 said:


> Are you REALLY criticizing bio-chem/Pirate while having a swastika in your sig?
> 
> I'm normally pretty civil and like a good argument, but you're a fucking douchebag right now.  Have some class.



BS is quickly turning himself into a joke around here. no one takes his posts seriously anymore.


----------



## bio-chem (Feb 17, 2010)

Nice to see you were finally able to learn to google BS. it only took you 14 pages on this thread to find an anti-Mormon website to cut and past from so you could finally come up with some negatives worth discussing.

In the LDS religion blacks were not able to hold the priesthood until by revelation this was changed in 1978. The official declaration is below. If you think you got enough game to get into a theological discussion about this BS, step to the plate.

Official Declaration 2


----------



## DaMayor (Feb 17, 2010)

BIGNOOB said:
			
		

> Another reason why I don't believe in organized religion of any sort.


----------



## bio-chem (Feb 17, 2010)

Big Smoothy said:


> the swastika on the Israeli flag, replacing the star of David, is a symbolic comment regarding the policies of the nation-state of Israel.



no, what it is, is an non-creative way of being offensive and the total mark of douche baggery


----------



## Big Smoothy (Feb 17, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> no, what it is, is an non-creative way of being offensive and the total mark of douche baggery



OK, K*nt, I remove my sig and put a Mormon joke signature tomorrow. 

Gettin' a little testy are you?


----------



## DaMayor (Feb 17, 2010)

Big Smoothy said:


> OK, K*nt, I remove my sig and put a Mormon joke signature tomorrow.
> 
> Gettin' a little testy are you?



Um, I believe that's spelled *C**nt.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Feb 17, 2010)

^ Thanks, man.  I forgot.


----------



## bio-chem (Feb 17, 2010)

Big Smoothy said:


> OK, K*nt, I remove my sig and put a Mormon joke signature tomorrow.
> 
> Gettin' a little testy are you?



Testy, not at all. You've lost dude, people here read what you post and don't take anything you write seriously. You have turned yourself into a joke.

If you feel an anti-Momon sig is what you want then by all means go ahead. I promise not to publicly comment on it as well. I'll only comment privately if I get asked about it.


----------



## bio-chem (Feb 17, 2010)

DaMayor said:


> Um, I believe that's spelled *C**nt.



For the life of me I couldn't figure out what he was trying to say. thanks for the clarification 

I think DOMS is right about this guy


----------



## Big Smoothy (Feb 17, 2010)

"Dudes,"

If you stop, I'll stop.  It's up to you.  

I don't want to fight on every thread.  Maybe on "Anything goes," but not on every thread.

If you stop, I stop.  We stop together.  

Peace & Love.


----------



## bio-chem (Feb 17, 2010)

^^sure, when you stop posting stuff i disagree with I'll stop disagreeing with you.


----------



## DaMayor (Feb 17, 2010)

Big Smoothy said:


> "Dudes,"
> 
> If you stop, I'll stop.  It's up to you.


Man, you've been instigating B.S. for *6 years *on this website...who's to believe you're going to shut up any time soon? 



> I don't want to fight on every thread.  Maybe on "Anything goes," but not on every thread.



Oh, Really? .......Not buyin' it.



> If you stop, I stop.  We stop together.


  



> Peace & Love.



What, now you're John Lennon?

No, *Mr. Snafu*.....If you want DaMayor's love...*you're gonna have to EARN it*. Now drop and give me fifty while singing the National Anthem and balancing the Book of Mormon on your flat, probably turban-wrapped, head.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Feb 17, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> ^^sure, when you stop posting stuff i disagree with I'll stop disagreeing with you.



No, mate. 

Disagreement is OK.  It's just our personal attacks.

We both can disagree at times without personally attacking.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Feb 17, 2010)

DaMayor said:


> Man, you've been instigating B.S. for *6 years *on this website...who's to believe you're going to shut up any time soon?



I have not been instigating stuff.  I have started positive threads and contributed, IMO. 



> If you want DaMayor's love...*you're gonna have to EARN it*. Now drop and give me fifty while singing the National Anthem and balancing the Book of Mormon on your flat, probably turban-wrapped, head.



I wanna earn it but I ain't gots any money.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 17, 2010)

Big Smoothy said:


> No, mate.



See, it's shit like this.  Mate?  Outside of the US that's analogous to "pal", but inside the US it makes you sound like a pirate. 

There's no way that this shithead is an American.


----------



## DaMayor (Feb 17, 2010)

Big Smoothy said:


> I wanna earn it but I ain't gots any money.


 
Not Money, fool...*Push-ups, Beeeotch! Pushups*!

And how about cleaning up that Asian/Australian what-ever-the-hell-it-is accent, especially when trying to type in Ebonics. That's some confusing junk!


----------



## NeilPearson (Feb 17, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> what part of "there is nothing that goes on in the temple that isn't part of public knowledge" don't you understand?



obviously you aren't high up enough to know about it


----------



## bio-chem (Feb 17, 2010)

NeilPearson said:


> obviously you aren't high up enough to know about it



But a well informed individual such as yourself is?


----------



## maniclion (Feb 17, 2010)

Big Smoothy said:


> "Dudes,"
> 
> If you stop, I'll stop.  It's up to you.
> 
> ...


To quote the Great El KEFE,

"I'm gonna go ahead and send my cock with next day shipping to your mouth."


----------



## KelJu (Feb 17, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> In the LDS religion blacks were not able to hold the priesthood until by revelation this was changed in 1978. The official declaration is below. If you think you got enough game to get into a theological discussion about this BS, step to the plate.
> 
> Official Declaration 2



So you admit that tenets of your religion were wrong in retrospect. That doesn't lead you to believe that you might be wrong on this too?


----------



## bio-chem (Feb 17, 2010)

KelJu said:


> So you admit that tenets of your religion were wrong in retrospect. That doesn't lead you to believe that you might be wrong on this too?



Well I would draw a comparison with declaration #2 to the change the early Christian church made in Acts chapter 10 where the gospel was no longer just preached to the Jews but then went to the gentiles as well, so while it was a change in policy I wouldn't say it was a fundamentally wrong tenet. Just that the time had come to make that change.

You bring up an interesting point though. I'm not sure how I would feel if the leaders of the church came out and now accepted and endorsed gay marriage. I don't expect it to happen, but I could see myself having a bit of 'crisis of faith' as many individuals did when the declaration #2 came out. I'm sorry I can't give you a better answer on that. It's something I'll have to think about a bit.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Feb 18, 2010)

DOMS said:


> See, it's shit like this.  Mate?  Outside of the US that's analogous to "pal", but inside the US it makes you sound like a pirate.
> 
> There's no way that this shithead is an American.



I want to stay on topic of what _KelJu and bio-chem_ are discussing about religion at the moment.

But for the records, DOMS, I am a naturally born American, but have lived overseas for 9 years.  I do hangout with Americans, but also Aussies and Brits and I use their words at times, because I hear it so often.

Anyway, back to KelJu and bio-chem.


----------



## User01 (Mar 12, 2010)

yepp.


----------



## GearsMcGilf (Mar 12, 2010)

Kill them all!  Mormonism is nothing but a sex cult!

Mitt Romney 2012!!!


----------



## bio-chem (Mar 12, 2010)

GearsMcGilf said:


> Kill them all!  Mormonism is nothing but a sex cult!
> 
> Mitt Romney 2012!!!



have you recently been prescribed medication that you are not taking?


----------



## DaMayor (Mar 12, 2010)

GearsMcGilf said:


> Kill them all!  Mormonism is nothing but a sex cult!
> 
> Mitt Romney 2012!!!



and the *Ass Clown of the Year *award goes to...


----------



## maniclion (Mar 12, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> have you recently been prescribed medication that you are not taking?



yES


----------



## KelJu (Mar 12, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> Well I would draw a comparison with declaration #2 to the change the early Christian church made in Acts chapter 10 where the gospel was no longer just preached to the Jews but then went to the gentiles as well, so while it was a change in policy I wouldn't say it was a fundamentally wrong tenet. Just that the time had come to make that change.
> 
> You bring up an interesting point though. I'm not sure how I would feel if the leaders of the church came out and now accepted and endorsed gay marriage. I don't expect it to happen, but I could see myself having a bit of 'crisis of faith' as many individuals did when the declaration #2 came out. I'm sorry I can't give you a better answer on that. It's something I'll have to think about a bit.




But that doesn't really answer the question. If they were wrong before, what makes you think they aren't wrong now? 

Replace blacks with gays, and it is the exact same situation all over again. 
Please tell me you see this.


----------



## bio-chem (Mar 12, 2010)

KelJu said:


> But that doesn't really answer the question. If they were wrong before, what makes you think they aren't wrong now?
> 
> Replace blacks with gays, and it is the exact same situation all over again.
> Please tell me you see this.



I answered the question. they weren't wrong before, and they aren't wrong now. It's a timing thing. I gave an example from early Christianity that demonstrates this. I don't expect you to understand, or accept the answer. I also do not consider being black the same as being gay.


----------



## maniclion (Mar 12, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> I answered the question. they weren't wrong before, and they aren't wrong now. It's a timing thing. I gave an example from early Christianity that demonstrates this. I don't expect you to understand, or accept the answer. I also do not consider being black the same as being gay.



So for example if pederasty were to make a come back as it was in ancient Greece you would accept it because the times say it's all good?


----------



## bio-chem (Mar 12, 2010)

maniclion said:


> So for example if pederasty were to make a come back as it was in ancient Greece you would accept it because the times say it's all good?



WTF? did you even get the reference I made to ACTS chapter 10? your question indicates you did not. 

Christs mortal ministry, and the ministry of the apostles directly after His crucification was to the Jews. After Acts chapter 10 the gospel was preached to all peoples Jew and Gentile. they waited till it was time and they were directed by God to go to the gentiles.

It shouldn't be hard to see the relation that I've made here. your example with pederasty isn't relevant


----------



## KelJu (Mar 12, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> I answered the question. they weren't wrong before, and they aren't wrong now. It's a timing thing. I gave an example from early Christianity that demonstrates this. I don't expect you to understand, or accept the answer. I also do not consider being black the same as being gay.



I asked you what makes you think the church is right that something is wrong, and you avoided the question by saying you don't know how you would feel about it. 

Its a timing thing? So by that logical, anything a culture believes at that time is right. What the Mormons believed then was right. What they believe now is right. Essentially, they are never wrong and you never have to question the validity of a specific belief.  

Answer the question. If the core tenets of your faith change over time, what does that tell you about your faith? Come on dude. Answer the question.


----------



## KelJu (Mar 12, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> WTF? did you even get the reference I made to ACTS chapter 10? your question indicates you did not.
> 
> Christs mortal ministry, and the ministry of the apostles directly after His crucification was to the Jews. After Acts chapter 10 the gospel was preached to all peoples Jew and Gentile. they waited till it was time and they were directed by God to go to the gentiles.
> 
> It shouldn't be hard to see the relation that I've made here. your example with pederasty isn't relevant



His question made perfect sense.


----------



## bio-chem (Mar 12, 2010)

KelJu said:


> I asked you what makes you think the church is right that something is wrong, and you avoided the question by saying you don't know how you would feel about it.
> 
> Its a timing thing? So by that logical, anything a culture believes at that time is right. What the Mormons believed then was right. What they believe now is right. Essentially, they are never wrong and you never have to question the validity of a specific belief.
> 
> Answer the question. If the core tenets of your faith change over time, what does that tell you about your faith? Come on dude. Answer the question.



I've absolutely answered the question. how much more plain can I be? Just because you don't like the answer doesn't mean the answer has to change to suit what you like.

The gospel goes to all people willing to live it. In the time that the Lord has chosen. that is the core tenet and it has always been thus. The tenet has never changed.


----------



## KelJu (Mar 12, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> I've absolutely answered the question. how much more plain can I be? Just because you don't like the answer doesn't mean the answer has to change to suit what you like.
> 
> The gospel goes to all people willing to live it. In the time that the Lord has chosen. that is the core tenet and it has always been thus. The tenet has never changed.



You avoided the question. You continue to avoid the question. Manic makes a perfect analogy, and it flies right over your head. Your not stupid, therefor your are either consciously or subconsciously running from the answer to the question. Hey Kelju, if a + b = c does a = c? Well I don't know how I feel about that. Your have to admit, that is a bullshit answer.

I'll spell it out for you. Of coarse the tenets of your religion change with time. All religious tenets change with time. That is because your own beliefs shape the interpretations. You decide what you believe, and then you bend the interpretations to fit your beliefs.


----------



## bio-chem (Mar 12, 2010)

KelJu said:


> You avoided the question. You continue to avoid the question. Manic makes a perfect analogy, and it flies right over your head. Your not stupid, therefor your are either consciously or subconsciously running from the answer to the question. Hey Kelju, if a + b = c does a = c? Well I don't know how I feel about that. Your have to admit, that is a bullshit answer.
> 
> I'll spell it out for you. Of coarse the tenets of your religion change with time. All religious tenets change with time. That is because your own beliefs shape the interpretations. You decide what you believe, and then you bend the interpretations to fit your beliefs.



not at all. that is your interpretation of religion and thats fine. like i've said I don't expect you to understand. God is unchanging, the plan of God is unchanging. unfortunately man has used religion too often to try and control others, and man has tried to change God. sometimes due to his own ignorance and misunderstanding, and all too often for much more nefarious reasons. We must change our understanding to match God, not change God to match our understanding.

In this case Acts chapter 10 and declaration #2 would be completely different instances than if homosexuality was now accepted. I've already said that i don't accept the premise that gays and blacks are interchangeable in this analogy. I don't accept the premise.

to get back to your original question. How would I feel/what would I do if the Church came out and now accepted homosexual marriage? again I can not give an answer other than having a 'crisis of faith' it would be a big challenge for me. I do not pretend to fully understand the thoughts of God, or his plan. It would be a major challenge of my understanding.

accept that or not. again, Kelju it doesn't matter dude.


----------



## KelJu (Mar 13, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> not at all. that is your interpretation of religion and thats fine. like i've said I don't expect you to understand. God is unchanging, the plan of God is unchanging. unfortunately man has used religion too often to try and control others, and man has tried to change God. sometimes due to his own ignorance and misunderstanding, and all too often for much more nefarious reasons. We must change our understanding to match God, not change God to match our understanding.
> 
> In this case Acts chapter 10 and declaration #2 would be completely different instances than if homosexuality was now accepted. I've already said that i don't accept the premise that gays and blacks are interchangeable in this analogy. I don't accept the premise.
> 
> ...





Yes! That is the answer. If your church changed their beliefs about something part of the core during your lifetime, you would have a crisis of faith. You would realize that the core practices of your church are not the word of God, but instead simply man made rules of conduct. 

It boils down to fear, not God.


----------



## DOMS (Mar 13, 2010)

KelJu said:


> Yes! That is the answer. If your church changed their beliefs about something part of the core during your lifetime, you would have a crisis of faith. You would realize that the core practices of your church are not the word of God, but instead simply man made rules of conduct.
> 
> It boils down to fear, not God.



You do realize that the gospel wasn't preached to non-Jews until Jesus said it should be that way, right?  Things do change.


----------



## KelJu (Mar 13, 2010)

DOMS said:


> You do realize that the gospel wasn't preached to non-Jews until Jesus said it should be that way, right?  Things do change.



Absolutely! Things change. So why the fuck do people resort to ancient text as an excuse for discrimination in the 21st century?


----------



## DOMS (Mar 13, 2010)

KelJu said:


> Absolutely! Things change. So why the fuck do people resort to ancient text as an excuse for discrimination in the 21st century?



I don't think you got my point.


----------



## KelJu (Mar 13, 2010)

DOMS said:


> I don't think you got my point.



No I got the point. I was only referring to the "things change" part.


----------



## jmorrison (Mar 13, 2010)

I will attempt to condense my thoughts into a few brief points.

1. There is no legitmate argument for prohibiting same sex marriage outside of religious views.  Basic separation of church and state should let anyone with a 5th grade education know immediately that putting legislation into effect for religious purposes is wrong and against everything our country is founded upon.  People using the "our country is founded on God" argument are hypocritical in the extreme.  Yes our country was founded on basic Christian principles.  It was also founded on freedom from religious persecution.   

2. Allowing gay marriage does not infringe upon anyones rights.  In the example Doms used, I couldn't agree more.  A church should NEVER be forced to marry ANYONE that they do not believe in marrying.  However, for gay marriage to be recognized by the state, and to allow them to be married by churches that support them is in no way affecting anyone in any negative way other than offending their sensibilities.  To which I say...grow up.  If you don't like it, don't look.  Basic kindergarten rules.

3.  "The voice of the people" argument is utter garbage.  If there was a nationwide poll in the 60's as to whether blacks and whites should be allowed to marry, I am pretty sure everyone here knows how that would go too.  That doesn't make it right.  

I am tired of seeing peoples rights infringed upon by the majority.  You don't have to like it, you don't have to participate in it, and you don't have to follow their belief system, so why in the world should they have to follow yours?

I won't even comment on the pedophile comment.  That is just stupid.  We are discussing the rights of consenting adults.

If what other people are doing is not hurting you, then why feel the need to impose your beliefs on them?  Its not like the gays of America are pounding on the doors of the Mormon churches demanding to be married there.  If the Mormon (or any other church) does not support gay marriage, they don't have to accept them or marry them!

This is pure discrimination, plain, black and white, and unhidden.

You feel that marriage is an important part of life and the pursuit of love, don't you think that many Gays feel the same way?


----------



## Pirate! (Mar 13, 2010)

> Basic separation of church and state should let anyone with a 5th grade education know immediately that putting legislation into effect for religious purposes is wrong and against everything our country is founded upon.



“Separation of Church and State” deals with a church organization having no legal authority over the people. The key word is organization.  Nowhere does it say to separate your values from your vote. If a principle taught to separate your personal convictions from your actions, then your definition of Separation of Church and State would become void, as your actions would no longer be linked to your belief that Church and State should be separated. Therefore, your belief that gay marriage should be legal would yield no action on your part. If you took action, you would be violating the principle you propose, which states that your beliefs should not influence legislation.

Here is what some people fail to understand:

1) Every belief system is a religion, even if the adherents profess to not be religious. Everyone has a religion, even if it's their own unique belief system. That includes you.

2) People do what they believe is right. Just because some recognize their values as being “religious” does not make those values more or less legitimate as someone who bases their values on science, logic, astrology or any other methodology. At the core, a belief is a belief.

The comparison between racial discrimination and redefining marriage is absurd, and an overwhelmingly large percentage of blacks find that comparison horribly offensive.

Anyone who has read the Bible has observed that certain groups of people played different roles and most were never invited. No Christian believes Christ was wrong for saying who should teach whom and when. Bio-chem’s example of the change of policy in the administration of the gospel is a good example of how things change. The Bill of Rights is another example. It was already on the program for a later date. This doesn’t mean that Christ or a Church led by Him was wrong. Otherwise, everyone in the Old Testament would be wrong for obeying the Law of Moses. It means there is an order for things to be done.

Personally, I don’t believe government has the final say on who is and is not married. Obviously, they do have the final say when it comes to legal rights. I think the legal rights issue should be such that any consenting adults can enter into the same contract for rights. Note that marriage is not a right.

People would do well to consider that everyone wants what they believe is right and just. The majority rule is in place for good reason. The liberal belief that the masses don’t know what’s best and therefore need the elite to make decisions for them is offensive, oppressive and undemocratic.


----------



## bio-chem (Mar 13, 2010)

KelJu said:


> Absolutely! Things change. So why the fuck do people resort to ancient text as an excuse for discrimination in the 21st century?



the tenet is as I said, in the due time of the Lord the gospel will go to everyone who is willing to live it. 

pre Acts 10 that was the Jews, post Acts chapter 10 is the Jews and Gentiles. If you want to look at that as a change thats fine, the "change" is not coming from man however.

you have yet to show how blacks and gays are the same and should be viewed as such.

I'm not using ancient text as an excuse for discrimination.


----------



## DOMS (Mar 13, 2010)

jmorrison said:


> If what other people are doing is not hurting you, then why feel the need to impose your beliefs on them?  Its not like the gays of America are pounding on the doors of the Mormon churches demanding to be married there.  If the Mormon (or any other church) does not support gay marriage, they don't have to accept them or marry them!
> 
> This is pure discrimination, plain, black and white, and unhidden.



You don't seem to know the most important mitigating fact in this issue.

The Mormons didn't throw themselves behind Prop 8 just because they don't believe in gay marriage.  The problem was actually caused by the gays.  They started to have the right to get married, but that wasn't good enough.  If a church refused to perform a ceremony for them, they would sue the church in an effort to force them to do so.  That was the reason that the Mormons, and other Christian churches, got behind Prop 8.

Boo-fucking-hoo.

So your premise (the part that I quoted) is entirely wrong.


----------



## bio-chem (Mar 13, 2010)

Pirate! said:


> ???Separation of Church and State??? deals with a church organization having no legal authority over the people. The key word is organization.  Nowhere does it say to separate your values from your vote. If a principle taught to separate your personal convictions from your actions, then your definition of Separation of Church and State would become void, as your actions would no longer be linked to your belief that Church and State should be separated. Therefore, your belief that gay marriage should be legal would yield no action on your part. If you took action, you would be violating the principle you propose, which states that your beliefs should not influence legislation.
> 
> Here is what some people fail to understand:
> 
> ...



well said, I wish I had the talent to explain things in such a concise way.


----------



## DOMS (Mar 13, 2010)

Pirate! said:


> The comparison between racial discrimination and redefining marriage is absurd, and an overwhelmingly large percentage of blacks find that comparison horribly offensive.



It's interesting that it was the blacks, not the Mormons, that made the passing of Prop 8 a reality.

I saw the gays protest at Mormon temples, but I've yet to see them protest in Compton.


----------



## jmorrison (Mar 13, 2010)

Pirate! said:


> Every belief system is a religion, even if the adherents profess to not be religious. Everyone has a religion, even if it's their own unique belief system. That includes you.



Semantics.  If my belief system is a religion, then I guess I follow the church of "Leave people alone if they aren't hurting you".  I never stated my religion or claimed a lack of it.  For your information, not that it holds any bearing on the conversation, I am a Christian, non-denominational, although I was raised Methodist.  I don't think for one second that my belief system should affect my fellow Muslim, Jewish, Agnostic, or Atheistic american neighbors.



Pirate! said:


> People do what they believe is right. Just because some recognize their values as being “religious” does not make those values more or less legitimate as someone who bases their values on science, logic, astrology or any other methodology. At the core, a belief is a belief.



Wrong.  A belief is a belief until you push it on others.  Then it becomes oppressive.



Pirate! said:


> The comparison between racial discrimination and redefining marriage is absurd, and an overwhelmingly large percentage of blacks find that comparison horribly offensive.



If you honestly can't see a DIRECT comparison between Blacks and Whites dating and marrying, then you are being deliberately obtuse.  In many parts of the country this is still not acceptable behavior, and I would bet that in many states, a vote whether to make it legal/illegal would swing the way of illegal.  That doesn't mean it is right.



Pirate! said:


> Personally, I don’t believe government has the final say on who is and is not married. Obviously, they do have the final say when it comes to legal rights. I think the legal rights issue should be such that any consenting adults can enter into the same contract for rights. Note that marriage is not a right.



So what is the debate?  You are ok with a "civil union" but opposed to the word "marriage" by your own definition, religious or otherwise?  What about THEIR definition of marriage?  What about THEIR religious beliefs?  What if a gay couple believes that they need to be married in the eyes of God if they want to live as partners?  Who are you to criticize or take away from their religious beliefs?  Or is your religion right and everyone elses wrong? 



Pirate! said:


> People would do well to consider that everyone wants what they believe is right and just. The majority rule is in place for good reason. The liberal belief that the masses don’t know what’s best and therefore need the elite to make decisions for them is offensive, oppressive and undemocratic.



Bullshit.  This argument holds no water.  Support of the majority is only taken out and waved around when it supports the wavers belief system.  Once again, don't dismiss my point about interracial dating and a vote on that.  it's not a liberal belief that we should not vote on how people live their lives, it is an American belief.  

As a Christian, do I agree with gays living together as partners?  Well...no.  Do I think that they should be able to come to my church and get married there?  No...my church does not believe in gay marriage.  Do I think how I feel about this should affect the quality of life for the average gay american?  Of course not, its none of my fucking business.  Should they be able to be married in a church (by definition an organized group of like-minded religious individuals) that supports Gay marriage?  Of course!  To say no is the same as saying that I don't think two people from any other religion should be able to get married outside of my personal beliefs.

Liberal...for fucks sake don't take it there.  I am a white american living in Alabama in my 30's who works in the oil industry, and is over the 100k per year mark.  I am the poster child for conservation.  I just don't allow my religious or political beliefs sway how I feel about basic American rights.  I took an oath to defend the constitution.  Not just the parts I like.


----------



## jmorrison (Mar 13, 2010)

DOMS said:


> You don't seem to know the most important mitigating fact in this issue.
> 
> The Mormons didn't throw themselves behind Prop 8 just because they don't believe in gay marriage.  The problem was actually caused by the gays.  They started to have the right to get married, but that wasn't good enough.  If a church refused to perform a ceremony for them, they would sue the church in an effort to force them to do so.  That was the reason that the Mormons, and other Christian churches, got behind Prop 8.
> 
> ...




Doms, once again, I couldn't agree more with you on this point.  In no way shape form or fashion am I saying that ANY church should be forced to marry ANYONE that they do not wish to marry.  I was only using the Mormon church as an example because it kicked off the debate.  You can substitute it for any religious institution opposed to gay marriage.


----------



## bio-chem (Mar 13, 2010)

ok morrison, are you ok with polygamy? polyandry? 12 year olds marrying?


----------



## DOMS (Mar 13, 2010)

jmorrison said:


> Doms, once again, I couldn't agree more with you on this point.  In no way shape form or fashion am I saying that ANY church should be forced to marry ANYONE that they do not wish to marry.  I was only using the Mormon church as an example because it kicked off the debate.  You can substitute it for any religious institution opposed to gay marriage.



Keep in mind that, at least this time, the gays brought it on themselves.

I lived in Utah for 7 years, I've gotten to know a lot about Mormons.  Two very important things to note about them:

1. The don't preach hate from the pulpit.  The never say "such and such are going to hell because they do x." 

2. The only go after groups if they feel actively threatened.

They're not a church that's big on hating.


----------



## jmorrison (Mar 13, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> ok morrison, are you ok with polygamy? polyandry? 12 year olds marrying?



I am completely ok with whatever decisions consenting adults make, as long as I am not forced to be involved with it.  If you don't come to my church asking to be married to your favorite Barca lounger, I have no issue with it.  I may think its weird, unhealthy, socially destructive and just plain wrong, but I would not support a law taking away your own personal beliefs.  I just wouldnt invite you over for lunch.

As for the 12 year olds, no.  Children are not mature enough to make intelligent decisions about religion, politics, or even what to eat for lunch.


----------



## bio-chem (Mar 13, 2010)

jmorrison said:


> I am completely ok with whatever decisions consenting adults make, as long as I am not forced to be involved with it.  If you don't come to my church asking to be married to your favorite Barca lounger, I have no issue with it.  I may think its weird, unhealthy, socially destructive and just plain wrong, but I would not support a law taking away your own personal beliefs.  I just wouldnt invite you over for lunch.
> 
> As for the 12 year olds, no.  Children are not mature enough to make intelligent decisions about religion, politics, or even what to eat for lunch.



well the supreme court upholds such laws as constitutional. I also question your statement that you are ok with something that is socially destructive. the laws we have in large part determine the society we wish to live in. we have the right to outlaw that which we find to be socially destructive.


----------



## jmorrison (Mar 13, 2010)

I will also say that I am completely ignorant to the Mormon faith, and did not know about the gay intrusion to the Mormon church and their sueing for marriage from the church.  In that particular argument, I would be on the side of the Mormons, as no one should have someone elses belief system thrust on them.  If the Mormon faith does not support gay marriage, they should not have to support it.  I just don't think they should LEGALLY oppose it either.  At that point they stop being a religious institution, and become a political movement.


----------



## jmorrison (Mar 13, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> well the supreme court upholds such laws as constitutional. I also question your statement that you are ok with something that is socially destructive. the laws we have in large part determine the society we wish to live in. we have the right to outlaw that which we find to be socially destructive.




You are completely misunderstanding what I meant by socially destructive.  I mean that in a personal light.  As in, people may not want to associate with you anymore.  Do I think that your marriage to the Barca lounger is in anyway destroying society?  Of course not...thats insane.  I just don't think you will receive many formal dinner invites with the Mrs.  Unless of course you surround yourself by other people who feel the same way.  Which is kind of the point of why we came to American in the first place...and unless I am wrong, why Mormons have a high concentration in Utah...to get away from people persecuting them for their beliefs.


----------



## Built (Mar 13, 2010)

jmorrison said:


> I will also say that I am completely ignorant to the Mormon faith, and did not know about the gay intrusion to the Mormon church and their sueing for marriage from the church.  In that particular argument, I would be on the side of the Mormons, as no one should have someone elses belief system thrust on them.  If the Mormon faith does not support gay marriage, they should not have to support it.  I just don't think they should LEGALLY oppose it either.  At that point they stop being a religious institution, and become a political movement.


Yes!

I had this argument with my mom a few weeks ago, only it was about Catholic priests - she feels they should be allowed to marry. I do not. 

If you are a Catholic priest, your faith has directed your calling. If you now wish to marry, you should - but you should stop being a priest. If you feel priests ought to be allowed to marry, that's fine - you can still be a good priest. 

Just not a Catholic one. Find another Church. 

I actually feel the government ought to get out of the business of marriage entirely. It should be a purely non-secular option. Join whatever Church you like, marry any which way you choose. 

Legally, it won't matter at all because there will be no particular legal status. If you want a legal partnership arrangement, hire a lawyer and arrange one, just like you would for a business partnership. Negotiate as you wish with your insurance provider. 

Solved.


----------



## bio-chem (Mar 14, 2010)

Built said:


> Yes!
> 
> I had this argument with my mom a few weeks ago, only it was about Catholic priests - she feels they should be allowed to marry. I do not.
> 
> ...



yes, thats absolutely what we need. (dripping with sarcasm) the fundamental family unit and building block of a healthy society further degraded by viewing it as a business  contract. The breakdown of marriage currently is that people are selfish in marriage. Instead of each spouse putting the other first in their lives they view it as what is beneficial for them. making divorce easier. successful marriage and a healthy family (which strengthens society) requires selflessness. it requires commitment. neither of which are fostered by treating it like a negotiated business contract.


----------



## DOMS (Mar 14, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> successful marriage and a healthy family (which strengthens society) requires selflessness. it requires commitment. neither of which are fostered by treating it like a negotiated business contract.



Yep.  Study after study shows that a single parent family _tends _to produce dysfunctional children, and thereby adults.

I'm from a single parent family, I know what I'm talking about.


----------



## Built (Mar 14, 2010)

bio-chem, you feel a church-sanctioned marriage is important, right? So, go ahead and have a church-sanctioned marriage. This is the spiritual part of the contract. I feel this is important, too. 

The legal portion - that part can be negotiated, or not. At the moment, they are both applied at once. I am in favour of separating them into two independent contracts - one is the legal arrangement, one is non-secular. There is still nothing preventing you from applying both. Churches need not be brought into the argument for or against Gay marriage. If the premise of your faith does not include Gay marriage, it becomes a matter of personal preference: stay in the Church, or find one that is in keeping with your own understanding of your faith. 

If you do not feel the personal need for non-secular marriage, you may simply choose to not marry at all, or to enter into a legal partnership, much like that provided through common-law status or civil union now. 

I mean really, under the current legislation, were you to marry through your Church, would you stay married because of legislation, or because your faith in God and your relationship with your faith defined your commitment to your marriage in the first place?


----------



## jmorrison (Mar 14, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> yes, thats absolutely what we need. (dripping with sarcasm) the fundamental family unit and building block of a healthy society further degraded by viewing it as a business  contract.




I simply do not believe that you are too dense to see your own hypocrisy.  You seem to be an intelligent guy, and there is no way you can be this shortsighted.

_The fundamental family unit and building block of a healthy society..._

No sir.  This is nothing more than your opinion of what a healthy society entails.  Just as an example, keeping in mind that I know about as much about the Mormon faith as you do about homosexual relationships, how would you respond to:

"The Mormon family unit is degrading the fundamental building blocks of society.  Their beliefs are un-christian/buddist/muslim/etc and therefor wrong.  They are destroying the American way of life."

Would you even bother to respond to tripe like that?  Or would you recognize it for the shameless hate mongering that it is?  What you do, and how you raise your family is absolutely none of my business if it does not affect me.  I do not believe that the Mormon faith is negatively impacting society, because IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ME.

You obviously don't like homosexuals or at a minimum believe them to be wrong.  Do you not believe that there are people that feel the same way about you and your faith?  That said, should they push for legislation that will prevent you from living your life the way you see fit, or should they just not live next to you?  It's an easy answer, and it's too bad that you are being deliberately thick-headed about this.

You don't have to like it, all you need to do it leave them the hell alone.


----------



## Pirate! (Mar 14, 2010)

> A belief is a belief until you push it on others.


Aren't you trying to push your belief that states should be forced to marry gays and recognize gay marriages from other states?



> So what is the debate? You are ok with a "civil union" but opposed to the word "marriage" by your own definition, religious or otherwise? What about THEIR definition of marriage? What about THEIR religious beliefs? What if a gay couple believes that they need to be married in the eyes of God if they want to live as partners?



This is the core debate. As I stated previously, I don't believe government determines marraige. The piece of paper filed in a county clerks office holds no meaning to anyone I've met. The equality issue has to do with two adults entering into a legal contract. Property rights, hospital rights etc...

I have a sister who is "married" to another woman. I have two gay brothers. I don't care what they do or what they call it. I'm glad we live in a land of liberty where they have such freedom of choice.

My issue was not with your stance, but your flawed interpretation of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

It's ironic that you bring up the issue of racial discrimination. The civil rights movement was not one that awarded liberty. It removed it. You argue that people should be left at liberty to decide for themselves, yet they are no longer allowed to decide. It's now illegal to practice ones belief if it relates to ethnicity, gender, age and a whole slew of things. 

I believe you don't see your error in reasoning; You want to see your beliefs enforced, and you are accusing your opposition of being wrong for wanting to see their beiefs enforced. The difference is the belief. 

Governmental controls remove liberty. I've made no arguement that Federal Government should regulate marriage. I think they should stay out of the marriage business.

Mormons, Muslims, Methodists should be allowed to practice their religion as long as they are not infringing upon the rights of others. This doesn't mean that the Federal Government needs to recognize and sanction it. The free excerice of religion means that people should be at liberty to practice how they want. This includes any contractual relationship by adults that doesn't remove the rights of another. This includes racial discrimination, polygamy and many other things you may find offense.


----------



## jmorrison (Mar 14, 2010)

First thing, you made a much clearer argument this round, and I have to agree with most of what you say.  I do have a few issues with your reasoning though.

First.  No I am not trying to force anything on anyone.  The state would not be "forced" to do anything, other than accept its residents as equals in spite of their religious or sexual orientation.  

If you a ok with a civil union, but not ok with a religious marriage, then you are only basing your argument on YOUR religion.  What about the religion of the people being married?  Why should they be subjected to the rules of a secular institution that they do not believe in?  That is not equality.

I do not agree at all that my interpretation of the separation of church and state is incorrect.  Afterall, it is the argument being used to support gay marriage.  If the state refuses to respect a persons rights with equality based upon religious views, and legislation is passed to favor christianity (or any other belief system) then it has crossed directly into the realm of "...prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

How can you accuse me of not seeing the error in my reasoning, when you obviously haven't slowed down to even understand my reasoning.  I do NOT want my beliefs enforced.  I want to see people treated equally despite their religious affiliation.  My personal beliefs have absolutely no bearing on what someone 3 houses down the block does with his life.

I couldn't agree more that government controls remove liberty.  I also agree that government should stay out of marriage completely.  However, by not allowing same sex marriages you ARE allowing for government regulation.  What else would we be talking about?  If people were able to pursue their own happiness without government intervention, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.  Remember, the gay and lesbian community is not asking for special consideration, they are only seeking equal rights.

I somewhat agree with the racial discrimination point.  Many liberties WERE lost during the civil rights movement.  However, no one is making it illegal to be a rascist, it is only illegal when it comes to equal treatment of the races.  You can hate whoever you want, but you have to treat everyone the same.  Which is once again...what the gay community is after.

I basically agree with your entire last paragraph.  However, if the government is going to recognize and sanction one particular religion, they needs to extend the same rights to ALL religions.  Which basically backs up your earlier point that the government should not be involved in a religious ceremony anyway.  A marriage is a 2 part deal.  One is legal, and one is spiritual.  The legal side should extend to all Americans.  The spiritual side should be between the 2 parties being married, and whatever God they believe in, NOT the government.


----------



## KelJu (Mar 14, 2010)

DOMS said:


> Yep.  Study after study shows that a single parent family _tends _to produce dysfunctional children, and thereby adults.
> 
> I'm from a single parent family, I know what I'm talking about.



You ever hear about the storks and the babies?


Off Topic: the ad at the bottom of the screen is killing, lol. 
Meet Single Mormons
Free to Join. 1000s of Pictures & Videos of Beautiful Mormon Singles.


----------



## Pirate! (Mar 14, 2010)

One issue is that there is no preferenicial treatment. Every man has the same "right" to marry a woman, and every woman has the same "right" to marry a man. In this regard, all are equal before the law. The Federal definition of marraige between one man and one woman was established in opposition to religious practices of the day. Interstingly, it was to stop Mormons from performing plural marraige. This made it clear that the the boundry of "free exercise thereof" was limited when dealing with marraige. 

Changing this precedent would remove all arguement against the legality of plural marraige. Almost everyone wants to draw the line somewhere. The only exceptions are those who think it's nobody's business. This would get less than 10% of the support of the people. Although I support the removal of federal controls of marraiges, I respect that the majority rules.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## bio-chem (Mar 14, 2010)

as of yet no one has even begun to address the links I posted. It's all there. I simply lack the ability to explain the Mormon point of view clearer than that. 

the truth is, in my opinion this is how our republic is supposed to work. I love the fact that people are allowed to vote according to their conscience. we are now determining one of the fundamental questions of our generation in my opinion. How do we define a family? what is the society we wish to live in?  

in my opinion, many of the problems we are facing today is because of the breakdown of the simple family unit. education, crime, and many other social ills of our time would be drastically improved by strengthening families.

mothers and fathers, husbands and wifes need to focus on each other and their children. we cannot rely upon the government, to raise our children. the reason the government is getting involved is because the American people are focusing on too many things outside of the home. for the record I consider this a small part of the overall problem.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Mar 15, 2010)

Mormons -- heretics -- Kooks --racists -- polygamists.


----------



## jmorrison (Mar 15, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> as of yet no one has even begun to address the links I posted. It's all there. I simply lack the ability to explain the Mormon point of view clearer than that.



No one has commented on it because it is only thinly veiled hate-mongering, and to be honest it is beneath you to expect people to take it seriously.

I know NOTHING about the Mormon faith, but I typed "Mormonism is bad" into google and HUNDREDS of articles popped up.  I did the same for Christianity.  Sae result.  Then Atheism.  Then Buddism.  Guess, what?  There are people out there who don't like anything anyone else does.

Here Bio-Chem.  Here is an article about how bad Mormonism is, and how it threatens society as a whole:

Ten reasons to protect your children from Mormonism

Now, would I expect you to take the time, effort or care to respond to such horseshit?  Of course not.  You believe as you believe, and no amount of hatred, bigotry or judgemental attitudes should sway you from whatever belief (or non belief) you hold in a higher power.

You are perfectly within your rights to disagree with homosexuality.  To suggest that we should legislate their religious views or love for one another....you come off just as backward, redneck, hypocritical and childish as the dimwit that wrote the above article.


----------



## bio-chem (Mar 15, 2010)

Big Smoothy said:


> Mormons -- heretics -- Kooks --racists -- polygamists.



you are dismissed, nothing you have ever said has been of value here on this thread


----------



## bio-chem (Mar 15, 2010)

jmorrison said:


> No one has commented on it because it is only thinly veiled hate-mongering, and to be honest it is beneath you to expect people to take it seriously.
> 
> I know NOTHING about the Mormon faith, but I typed "Mormonism is bad" into google and HUNDREDS of articles popped up.  I did the same for Christianity.  Sae result.  Then Atheism.  Then Buddism.  Guess, what?  There are people out there who don't like anything anyone else does.
> 
> ...


you obviously didn't read it. nothing about it is hate mongering and I would love someone to show any part of it that could be considered that way.


----------



## Pirate! (Mar 15, 2010)

Which link? The last one I remember seeing you post was the Official Declaration 2.


----------



## jmorrison (Mar 15, 2010)

This one:

The Divine Institution of Marriage - LDS Newsroom

And he is wrong.  I did read it.  I was going to go through it and highlight all the areas that back up my points, but to be honest, I am simply tired of the conversation.  People that are blinded by their own intolerance and bigotry seldom think that they are wrong.  I am sure 100 years ago, some very decent people were quite sure that blacks were an inferior race and that women lacked the mental abilities to take a leading role in society.  They wouldn't have admitted that they were just being stubborn and hateful either.

Broken down into the simplest terms, the article is a well written piece detailing the Mormon stance on gay marriage, which boiled down is that they do not believe that it conforms with their ideals of a moral existance and what they believe to be threats to society as a whole if this were to be allowed.

It is propaganda.  Better written than most, not as well as some, and I am sure well meaning, but propaganda none the less.

And Bio chem...if you honestly, truly believe that procaiming love for homosexuals on one hand, while accusing them of living "amoral" lives, of being unable to properly raise children, and of generally being deliquents in the same paragraph is not hate rhetoric at worst, and hypocritical at best...then you are entirely too dense to converse with.

I am going to attempt to back out of this conversation now.  This has literally made me sick to my stomach.  To see an ignorant bigot trash an entire social caste is bad enough.  To see an intelligent and educated man do the same is just disheartening.


----------



## DOMS (Mar 15, 2010)

This seems an appropriate place to post this.






YouTube Video


----------



## Dark Geared God (Mar 15, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> yes, thats absolutely what we need. (dripping with sarcasm) the fundamental family unit and building block of a healthy society further degraded by viewing it as a business contract. The breakdown of marriage currently is that people are selfish in marriage. Instead of each spouse putting the other first in their lives they view it as what is beneficial for them. making divorce easier. successful marriage and a healthy family (which strengthens society) requires selflessness. it requires commitment. neither of which are fostered by treating it like a negotiated business contract.


 

well said..


----------



## Pirate! (Mar 15, 2010)

jmorrison,

I agree with your above post, except for your suggestion that it is not possible to love someone who you believe is sinning. God loves all his children, yet the scriptures tell us he does not tolerate sin. Two of the main themes of the New Testament are: 1) Love thy neighbor and 2) Call him to repentence. A humble Christian would not call his neighbor to repentance if he wasn't acting out of love. It serves him no good. Calling sin something else in order to be PC was not a practice taught by Christ. There is a difference between condemning somebody and reaching out to him by alerting them to the error of their ways. 

What do the missionaries in the Methodist Church do if not boldly claim the gospel as they understand it?


----------



## bio-chem (Mar 15, 2010)

jmorrison said:


> The Divine Institution of Marriage - LDS Newsroom



the offer still stands, if anyone wishes to discuss anything here, I'd love to hear their thoughts. I don't expect to change anyones mind here, And my mind will not be changed, but I do like to try to understand the other point of view


----------



## SYN (May 22, 2010)

YouTube Video


----------



## bio-chem (May 22, 2010)

SYN said:


> YouTube Video



painful to watch all that. the girl is fairly well spoken and intelligent for her age, but she has a fundamental lack of understanding of what the meaning of separation of church and state means, as do many individuals on this forum and in this country.

Our founding fathers who wrote separation of church and state into our laws spoke often of this being a Christian nation. It is pretty obvious that separation of church and state refers to the prohibition of being a state sponsored religion. We will not have a titular head of government and church as the british monarch queen elizabeth is the head of the church of england. Prop 8 does not violate that. Nothing in our laws prohibits me from voting to define what type of society i wish to be in. comparing this issue to brown vs. board of education is an offense to that landmark case. 

saying that prop 8 breaks the separation of church and state is the definition of ignorance on this issue. are we then to say that we cannot have laws against murder because it would be supporting the 10 commandments? on the surface to those who do not wish to dig to the fundamental facts this girls argument may make sense. That is what prop 8 is fighting.


----------



## Dark Geared God (May 22, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> painful to watch all that. the girl is fairly well spoken and intelligent for her age, but she has a fundamental lack of understanding of what the meaning of separation of church and state means, as do many individuals on this forum and in this country.
> 
> Our founding fathers who wrote separation of church and state into our laws spoke often of this being a Christian nation. It is pretty obvious that separation of church and state refers to the prohibition of being a state sponsored religion. We will not have a titular head of government and church as the british monarch queen elizabeth is the head of the church of england. Prop 8 does not violate that. Nothing in our laws prohibits me from voting to define what type of society i wish to be in. comparing this issue to brown vs. board of education is an offense to that landmark case.
> 
> saying that prop 8 breaks the separation of church and state is the definition of ignorance on this issue. are we then to say that we cannot have laws against murder because it would be supporting the 10 commandments? on the surface to those who do not wish to dig to the fundamental facts this girls argument may make sense. That is what prop 8 is fighting.


 
I think we can all agree she has a nice tittys


----------



## maniclion (May 22, 2010)

SYN said:


> YouTube Video


I want to fuck her face so hard just because she looks like Lois Griffin...giggity giggity goo!


----------



## bio-chem (May 22, 2010)

The Situation said:


> I think we can all agree she has a nice tittys



dude, she is like 16. thats jail time 

who are you Lawrence Taylor?


----------



## SYN (May 22, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> painful to watch all that. the girl is fairly well spoken and intelligent for her age, but she has a fundamental lack of understanding of what the meaning of separation of church and state means, as do many individuals on this forum and in this country.
> 
> Our founding fathers who wrote separation of church and state into our laws spoke often of this being a Christian nation. It is pretty obvious that separation of church and state refers to the prohibition of being a state sponsored religion. We will not have a titular head of government and church as the british monarch queen elizabeth is the head of the church of england. Prop 8 does not violate that. Nothing in our laws prohibits me from voting to define what type of society i wish to be in. comparing this issue to brown vs. board of education is an offense to that landmark case.
> 
> saying that prop 8 breaks the separation of church and state is the definition of ignorance on this issue. are we then to say that we cannot have laws against murder because it would be supporting the 10 commandments? on the surface to those who do not wish to dig to the fundamental facts this girls argument may make sense. That is what prop 8 is fighting.





We don't live in the 17th century anymore.


----------



## maniclion (May 22, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> dude, she is like 16. thats jail time
> 
> who are you Lawrence Taylor?


Profile
Name:Laci
Channel Views:757,984
Total Upload Views:2,657,331
Style:Commentary
*Age:21*

Not only is she old enough to screw, but also old enough not to get you in trouble for trying to get her drunk so you can fool around....


----------



## bio-chem (May 22, 2010)

SYN said:


> We don't live in the 17th century anymore.



you are right. its not the 17th century. and as the 13th 14th and 15th amendments show we have the right and the ability to change our definitions. so if you want to redefine something like marriage, or the separation of church and state you are going to have to do it through the vote. the way the founders intended.  but seeing as these hippie, communist, fagot, heathens are incapable of doing either we will be forced to listen to them bitch about things they don't take the time to properly understand.


----------



## bio-chem (May 22, 2010)

maniclion said:


> Profile
> Name:Laci
> Channel Views:757,984
> Total Upload Views:2,657,331
> ...



im checking ID with that one


----------



## bio-chem (May 22, 2010)

SYN said:


> We don't live in the 17th century anymore.



FYI our country was founded in the 18th century. and it is currently the 21st century


----------



## SYN (May 23, 2010)

maniclion said:


> Profile
> Name:Laci
> Channel Views:757,984
> Total Upload Views:2,657,331
> ...



Shes 18


----------



## SYN (May 23, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> FYI our country was founded in the 18th century. and it is currently the 21st century




The United States Constitution was written in 1787


----------



## DOMS (May 23, 2010)

SYN said:


> The United States Constitution was written in 1787



You're a nice girl and all...but that's the 18th century.


----------



## Dark Geared God (May 23, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> dude, she is like 16. thats jail time
> 
> who are you Lawrence Taylor?


 
Not if your in TN its 14 yee haw


----------



## Dark Geared God (May 23, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> you are right. its not the 17th century. and as the 13th 14th and 15th amendments show we have the right and the ability to change our definitions. so if you want to redefine something like marriage, or the separation of church and state you are going to have to do it through the vote. the way the founders intended. but seeing as these hippie, communist, fagot, heathens are incapable of doing either we will be forced to listen to them bitch about things they don't take the time to properly understand.


----------



## bio-chem (May 23, 2010)

DOMS said:


> You're a nice girl and all...but that's the 18th century.



damn, must spread reputation around before giving to DOMS again


----------



## KelJu (May 23, 2010)

DOMS said:


> You're a nice girl and all...but that's the 18th century.



That is what I was going to say. 



As far as the rest of the thread goes, I just don't have the desire to make points for why I think it is wrong anymore. No one is going to change their opinion at this point.

As time goes by, I hope things change for the better. In time, gays will have the same rights as straight people, just like blacks have the same rights as whites, and women have the same rights as men. 

You know, many countries with a much much higher rating of general happiness and satisfaction with life compared to the US allow gay marriage. This does not mean that allowing gay marriage makes a nation happier. It means a happier nation allows others to do what they want as long as it doesn't hurt someone else. Countries like Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and Norway. Denmark has always rated the highest in the world in having very happy and healthy citizens. Perhaps we could learn from them. They don't get caught up in the drama of others when the issue is dumb to begin with. 

I hope the day will come that Americans could finally get out of their neighbors business. 

On a related note, check out what the president of Potugal said recently regarding a gay marriage bill passing to allow same sex marriage.. 



> President Anibal Cavaco Silva said he would not veto the bill to allow gay marriage because majority liberal lawmakers would only overturn his decision. The country must focus instead on battling a crippling economic crisis that has increased unemployment and deepened poverty, he said.
> 
> “Given that fact, I feel I should not contribute to a pointless extension of this debate, which would only serve to deepen the divisions between the Portuguese and divert the attention of politicians away from the grave problems affecting us.



That is awesome. What a concept. Lets focus on real problems, and stop worrying about butt fuckers and pussy bumpers sharing vows.

The debate is dumb. The struggle is pointless. I have never disliked 
Mormons more than I do now. I At this point, I hope karma catches up to them.


----------



## Big Smoothy (May 25, 2010)

Joseph Smith was a fraud.

Flat out, simple.

He deciphered Egyptian writing, that were later translated by researchers years later - Joseph Smith got it all wrong.


----------



## Big Smoothy (May 25, 2010)

More on the plates, and the Egyptian Papyrus lie, and Joseph Smith believing that people lived on the moon and dressed like Quakers.






YouTube Video


----------



## bio-chem (May 25, 2010)

Big Smoothy said:


> Joseph Smith was a fraud.
> 
> Flat out, simple.
> 
> He deciphered Egyptian writing, that were later translated by researchers years later - Joseph Smith got it all wrong.



dude, time to give it up already. everything you have ever posted on this thread has been refuted. you've got no game here. even the truly legitimate negatives you were unable to do anything with. you still fall back into this bogus stuff. you have been blinded. leave this topic to those who know what they are talking about. the hardest questions on this thread have come from Kelju


----------



## Big Smoothy (May 25, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> dude, time to give it up already. everything you have ever posted on this thread has been refuted.



bio-chem,

Please "refute" this:

The Papyrus lie by Joseph Smith.






YouTube Video


----------



## Big Smoothy (May 25, 2010)

bio-chem said:


> dude, time to give it up already. everything you have ever posted on this thread has been refuted.



Please refute this: Joseph Smith believed people lived on the Moon and dressed like Quakers.

It's a historical fact.



> *Conclusions About Mormonism*
> 
> by David Padfield
> 
> ...



Source: Mormonism | Joseph Smith: Liar, Fraud and Con-Artist


----------

