Will Gay Marriage Pit Church Against Church?

[LowellGuy]

Jeff wrote:

<quoted text>
Blacks and whites should be allowed to marry if they are opposite sexes.

Why? And, what if they're incapable of procreating? Should they still be allowed to marry? If so, why?

[Romans Road]

Troth for Leogere wrote:

<quoted text>you must be 12 yrs old.. no adult is as dumb as you are..well, except fundies.

Well he owns you guys in every thread and every debate. Don't you unbelievers ever get tired of looking like fools and losing every single debate? No wonder you unbelievers have to resort to childish and idiotic lies.......

Time to go make up some more lies about the bible......or maybe get your "friends" to start banning people.

[Jeff]

LowellGuy wrote:

<quoted text>
Why? And, what if they're incapable of procreating? Should they still be allowed to marry? If so, why?

Opposite sex people should be allowed to marry. Even people in their old age who cannot procreate still affirm the value of traditional marriage which benefits all.

[No Surprise]

NorCal Native wrote:

<quoted text>
Could you kindly define "NOT LONG AGO"? Because frankly your "NOT LONG AGO" sounds like stuff from the Old West........almost 170 years ago.......but I could be off!!!

It actually happens today in our time. In remote villages in China, Russia, Africa, South and Central America NG and other groups have filmed this taking place. To change a popular phrase, "What's born in the village, stays in the village." Watch Fiddler On The Roof if you wish to see a theatrical example. The indigenous people right here in our country did this thing in their tribes all the time. The east coast Indian tribes, the plains Indians, the west coast Indians and the Pueblo Indians all did it. A young couple married and the village helped build their home and gave gifts to help them begin their lives.

[Jazybird58]

Jeff wrote:

<quoted text>
Opposite sex people should be allowed to marry. Even people in their old age who cannot procreate still affirm the value of traditional marriage which benefits all.

Ok Brian-G, hows does YOUR marriage benefit mine or my marriage

[Jazybird58]

Romans Road wrote:

<quoted text>
Well he owns you guys in every thread and every debate. Don't you unbelievers ever get tired of looking like fools and losing every single debate? No wonder you unbelievers have to resort to childish and idiotic lies.......
Time to go make up some more lies about the bible......or maybe get your "friends" to start banning people.

Hi dummy, how does he own us? By repeating the same moronic crap????

[No Surprise]

Dana Robertson wrote:

<quoted text>
You're the one that posted that you got excommunicated from the Mormon church after only 3 months. Are you lying now, or were you lying then?

Neither. You're the one that didn't listen to what I told you. So you perpetuate your own lie of something you have no knowledge of because you didn't listen to 'everything' I told you.
I said I had been a member of the church for about three(3) months when I quit attending. I was excommunicated about 4 to 5 years later.

[Jeff]

Jazybird58 wrote:

<quoted text>Ok Brian-G, hows does YOUR marriage benefit mine or my marriage

When marriages are solid society benefits. Children have a better chance to perform well and contribute to society. When marriages are bad and end in divorce for example then all kinds of bad things can happen. Children suffer and many can be neglected which can lead to more crimes. Many criminals and gang members come from broken homes. We all pay the bill to house criminals.

[Earth Child 1]

Jeff wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm not basing my arguments against it on religious reasons.

Yes you are and you have. Your posts a few pages back on this thread proves it too. You can't even remember your own lies anymore. Oh, that's right, you're lyin' for Jesus..........LOL, which is so typical from you.

[NorCal Native]

No Surprise wrote:

<quoted text>
It actually happens today in our time. In remote villages in China, Russia, Africa, South and Central America NG and other groups have filmed this taking place. To change a popular phrase, "What's born in the village, stays in the village." Watch Fiddler On The Roof if you wish to see a theatrical example. The indigenous people right here in our country did this thing in their tribes all the time. The east coast Indian tribes, the plains Indians, the west coast Indians and the Pueblo Indians all did it. A young couple married and the village helped build their home and gave gifts to help them begin their lives.

So, you weren't discussing here in the United States......and if so.....you were discussing affairs of Native Americans BEFORE White folks arrived......fair enough!!!

Oh and by the way......what those other Countries do have NO BEARING on how things happen in this Country!!!

[NorCal Native]

Jeff wrote:

<quoted text>
Opposite sex people should be allowed to marry. Even people in their old age who cannot procreate still affirm the value of traditional marriage which benefits all.

But this is where your argument loses it's functionality.....if an old couple can not naturally procreate, why should they be allowed to marry and a Same-Sex couple not?

By the way.....this is the argument used by the proponents of Prop 8 and it has already lost twice, both at the district level and the appeals level!!!

[Jeff]

Earth Child 1 wrote:

<quoted text> Yes you are and you have. Your posts a few pages back on this thread proves it too. You can't even remember your own lies anymore. Oh, that's right, you're lyin' for Jesus..........LOL, which is so typical from you.

Others have been doing that. I only address it when someone tries to make the case for homosexuality from the Bible.

[NorCal Native]

Jeff wrote:

<quoted text>
When marriages are solid society benefits. Children have a better chance to perform well and contribute to society. When marriages are bad and end in divorce for example then all kinds of bad things can happen. Children suffer and many can be neglected which can lead to more crimes. Many criminals and gang members come from broken homes. We all pay the bill to house criminals.

So, the marriages of Gay and Lesbian couples are just as solid as the marriages of opposite-sex couples......which in turn benefit society:-)

Nothing like a good old fashion stereotyping of gang members!!!

[No Surprise]

Dana Robertson wrote:

<quoted text>
Again, you refuse to see cause and effect in attempt to protect that sick faith. This happened during the Mormon Reformation. A time they were teaching blood atonement and revenge for the death of Joseph Smith. It was also soon after the death of Parley P. Pratt who was killed in Arkansas. Many on that wagon train were from Arkansas, and rumors were flying around that they were involved in his death. The church also gave strict orders that the members wee not to sell the party any desperately needed supplies. One member was almost beaten to death for selling them a sack of potatoes.
What happened, happened as a result of the teachings of the church leaders. That makes the church responsible.

You better read more information about this story than you have read at present.
What happened had absolutely nothing to do with church teachings. Even non-Mormon scholars have never stated an ignorant stupid statement as that for why the massacre took place. You said that because of your deep seated angry hate for that church. Read the historical information.
On September 6th the high council met to discuss a Indian massacre of the wagon train. Some said yes and some said no. Haight one of the presidents sent a rider on the 7th to Salt Lake to ask Young what he thought they should do. It was a round trip six day ride.
Now is when you want to ask, if Young commanded the massacre to happen already before this meeting, why did a council meet to discuss if one should take place and why was there disagreements and why was a rider sent the next day to ask for Young's permission to commit that massacre or not to do it if indeed, like Smurf believes, that Young had already given orders for it to happen? If Young had commanded the massacre to happen, there would have been a council to inform the elders what they were being commanded by their prophet to do. Because this was a Mormon militia that was going to preform the massacre, any one saying no to involvement could have been shot for treason. There would have been no dissenting votes. There would have been no rider dispatched to SL. Young wouldn't have wrote a note to not harm the wagon train.
On the same day the rider was dispatched, Haight leading the militia attacked the wagon train. They committed their horrendous actions from the 7th to the 11th. The rider with a letter from Young telling Haight and others not to harm the wagon train arrived on the 13th.
What these men did they did of their own accord. They didn't do it from church teachings. It's also recorded they weren't going to massacre as many as they did. They were mainly going after the men. But someone in the group thought people in the wagon train saw they were whites and might have recognized them. At this point, the men decided to massacre all except little children so there weren't any witnesses.
As scholars on both sides have widely agreed, these men at first were carrying out a 'revenge killing'. Not a blood atonement killing. Not a church doctrine killing. Read the historical information.

[Tony C]

NorCal Native wrote:

<quoted text>
These same folks who are biotching about their supposed "moral" values being attacked would frucking scream bloody murder if someone denied them some religious cake or something else because it could go against that person's "MORAL" values......but we already know that idiots like Jeff don't truly care about the beliefs of others......just their own beliefs!!!

It's a war on Christmas when you say "Happy Holidays." But it's OK to refuse service to gay people. LOL.

[Tony C]

Jeff wrote:

<quoted text>
Blacks and whites should be allowed to marry if they are opposite sexes.

Objection: non-responsive.

[Tony C]

Jeff wrote:

<quoted text>
When marriages are solid society benefits. Children have a better chance to perform well and contribute to society. When marriages are bad and end in divorce for example then all kinds of bad things can happen. Children suffer and many can be neglected which can lead to more crimes. Many criminals and gang members come from broken homes. We all pay the bill to house criminals.

When marriages are solid without children, society still benefits.

When marriages are solid with adopted children, society still benefits.

When marriages are solid with children born via surrogate, society still benefits.

You either ban all marriages without potential of procreation, or you can't ban any marriages without potential of procreation.

[No Surprise]

Grandpasmurf952 wrote:

Most Gay people are angry at the Mormons because of the example they set with proposition 8. And they have every right to be angry!
I wasn't even familiar with the Mormons until prop h(8). Now that I am I find the Later Day Saints teachings even more and more hateful than just excluding gays the more I research the nature of the church.
I am not singling out the Mormons as a hate group, and I don't think anyone else here is either. But the teachings encourage people to hate just like a lot of other religions do and need to be exposed for what they are.

Let me help you to understand where you twist things and aren't aware of it.
You stated... "I find the Later Day Saints teachings even more and more hateful..." That means/insinuates from your opinion the Mormons teach hate.
Than you state in contradiction... "I am not singling out the Mormons as a hate group..."
Understand your own contradiction? You have singled out and stated the Mormons as having hate doctrine/speech/teachings/etc for months concerning homosexuality. Than you say you're not singling them out as a hate group.
Next I have some questions for you. You claim Mormons (concerning homosexuals) teach hate and have hateful doctrines. But they also teach hate and have hateful doctrines against people engaged in adultery, bestiality, premarital sex, people using drugs/alcohol/tobacco/coffee to name a few. And all these hate doctrines/teachings and others like them have been in this church since it's foundation. People join this church because their 'usually' in agreement with those hate doctrines/teachings. And you find offense that Mormons would come out in force against same sex marriage? Am I missing something? This is a religion that is against all forms of sexual interactions out side the marital relationship between a man and a woman and you and others think it strange/wrong/unusual/incorrec t/evil that they would vote the way that most of America's non-Mormons would also vote? Fricking give me a dummy pill to understand this as it stymies you..lol.

[Grandpasmurf952]

No Surprise wrote:

<quoted text>
You better read more information about this story than you have read at present.
What happened had absolutely nothing to do with church teachings. Even non-Mormon scholars have never stated an ignorant stupid statement as that for why the massacre took place. You said that because of your deep seated angry hate for that church. Read the historical information.
On September 6th the high council met to discuss a Indian massacre of the wagon train. Some said yes and some said no. Haight one of the presidents sent a rider on the 7th to Salt Lake to ask Young what he thought they should do. It was a round trip six day ride.
Now is when you want to ask, if Young commanded the massacre to happen already before this meeting, why did a council meet to discuss if one should take place and why was there disagreements and why was a rider sent the next day to ask for Young's permission to commit that massacre or not to do it if indeed, like Smurf believes, that Young had already given orders for it to happen? If Young had commanded the massacre to happen, there would have been a council to inform the elders what they were being commanded by their prophet to do. Because this was a Mormon militia that was going to preform the massacre, any one saying no to involvement could have been shot for treason. There would have been no dissenting votes. There would have been no rider dispatched to SL. Young wouldn't have wrote a note to not harm the wagon train.
On the same day the rider was dispatched, Haight leading the militia attacked the wagon train. They committed their horrendous actions from the 7th to the 11th. The rider with a letter from Young telling Haight and others not to harm the wagon train arrived on the 13th.
What these men did they did of their own accord. They didn't do it from church teachings. It's also recorded they weren't going to massacre as many as they did. They were mainly going after the men. But someone in the group thought people in the wagon train saw they were whites and might have recognized them. At this point, the men decided to massacre all except little children so there weren't any witnesses.
As scholars on both sides have widely agreed, these men at first were carrying out a 'revenge killing'. Not a blood atonement killing. Not a church doctrine killing. Read the historical information.

Here is some more information to read:

"Evidently Brigham Young had promised all of the Fancher cattle to local Indian leaders:

"...Hamblin and some twelve Indian chiefs on September first met with Brigham Young and his most trusted interpreter, 49-year-old Dimick B. Huntington, at Great Salt Lake. Taking part in this pow-wow were Kanosh, the Mormon chief of the Pahvants; Ammon, half-brother of Walker; Tutsegabit, head chief of the Piedes; Youngwuds, another Piede chieftain, and other leaders of desert bands along the Santa Clara and Virgin rivers.

"Little was known of what they talked about until recently when it came to light that Huntington (apparently speaking for Young) told the chiefs that he 'gave them all the cattle that had gone to Cal[ifornia by] the south rout[e].' The gift 'made them open their eyes,' he said. But 'you have told us not to steal,' the Indians replied.'So I have,' Huntington said,'but now they have come to fight us & you for when they kill us they will kill you.' The chiefs knew what cattle he was giving them. They belonged to the Baker-Fancher train." (Forgotten Kingdom, p. 167-168)"

this is from:

http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/mmm_famil...

[No Surprise]

Grandpasmurf952 wrote:

There was a mystic in Ancient China who once said "He who knows does not say, he who says does not know."
You can draw whatever implications you like from that.

The plain implication is that it proves you don't know what you say. Or any of the rest of us for that matter in these threads.