'Not In Our House!':: Mormon Church O...

'Not In Our House!':: Mormon Church Outlines Opposition To Gay Marriage

There are 24 comments on the EDGE story from Jan 11, 2014, titled 'Not In Our House!':: Mormon Church Outlines Opposition To Gay Marriage. In it, EDGE reports that:

The Mormon church is telling its local leaders that same-sex wedding ceremonies and receptions are prohibited in their churches.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at EDGE.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Latter Day Taints

Philadelphia, PA

#1 Jan 11, 2014
I prefer their outright bigotry rather than the cult like, imo, attempts at dissembling on their part to say how the mormon whatever it is is becoming less hateful, defaming and discriminatory.
Latter Day Taints

Philadelphia, PA

#2 Jan 11, 2014
The mormon whatever it is also outline its opposition to baptisms by pixie.

Since: Dec 08

El Paso, TX

#3 Jan 11, 2014
Latter Day Taints wrote:
The mormon whatever it is also outline its opposition to baptisms by pixie.
And baptism of DEAD people. Christian DEAD people!

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#4 Jan 11, 2014
Like we really care.
hi hi

Lancaster, PA

#5 Jan 11, 2014
snyper wrote:
Like we really care.
This is my reaction. You *cannot* claim "offense" to gay marriage without equal attention being given to the enormous offense "religion" causes -- and the news media won't touch it.

It wasn't until the internet that I realized what losers and prevaricators the news media are. They continue in some quarters to refer to gay marriage as a "practice"; they continue to highlight what they ludicrously deem to be "fair" points of view by filling articles *about* gay marriage with voices of *opposition to* gay marriage.

This is the same thing as profiling anything having to do with race and being DAMN SURE to include voices of the KKK, for "balance" in the article.

They quote individuals "offended" by "attacks" upon "family values" and there is not one word breathed about the jaw-droppingly offensive actions and behaviors of the so-called "religious." Nothing.

Can't change the media, but I can steadfastly and eternally refuse to care how often or how sobbingly they feel offended. Zero concern here. I react as if they didn't even speak or had nothing to add to the discussion. WHEN the media starts covering these matters FAIRLY, I may pay attention then. Until that time, zero.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#6 Jan 11, 2014
TomInElPaso wrote:
<quoted text>
And baptism of DEAD people. Christian DEAD people!
They're not Christians. They always stated they weren't Christians, until just in the recent past, they suddenly reversed their position, and have now started claiming that they are Christians.

They're not. And I do not know of any Christian denomination that says they are Christians.

The Christian sacrament of Baptism is very specific, and there NEVER is or was a "Baptism of the dead" in Christian theology or practice. If you are going to "baptize the dead", you are performing a NON-Christian ceremony.
Angel

Aurora, CO

#7 Jan 11, 2014
Who cares? The bible is Christian, not American. Gay marriage will happen.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#8 Jan 11, 2014
The can do as they please in their own churches - it's everything outside of them that matters to the rest of us.

Since: Jul 09

Indy/Philly/Toronto

#9 Jan 11, 2014
Fine.
Ignore them - act as if they do not exist - live your life - let them try to tell others how to live - let them believe in their magic underwear - let them wallow in their hate and fear - let them be their own worst enemy - let them just disappear.
Why do we even care?
I don't.
Latter Day Taints

Philadelphia, PA

#10 Jan 11, 2014
TomInElPaso wrote:
<quoted text>
And baptism of DEAD people. Christian DEAD people!
That's what "baptism by proxy" mean, isn't it?

And they're big on baptizing dead Jews and, I would assume, members of other religions.

Sick.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#11 Jan 11, 2014
mark in Toronto wrote:
Fine.
Ignore them - act as if they do not exist - live your life - let them try to tell others how to live - let them believe in their magic underwear - let them wallow in their hate and fear - let them be their own worst enemy - let them just disappear.
Why do we even care?
I don't.
We CAN'T ignore them, because they actively work to deny us our CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.

THAT'S why we can't ignore them.

Since: Sep 10

Earth

#12 Jan 11, 2014
"Not in your cult building"?

You mean ONLY not in your cult building. Outside of it, you religitard dumbfucks have no business telling anyone what to do.

Given the history of institutionalized racism, bigotry and hypocrisy, one has to wonder why anyone still wants to be a moron...I mean, a mormon.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#13 Jan 11, 2014
It's like watching an old looney toons cartoon.

Daffy Duck trying to patch 57 holes in the dike at the same time.

I'm glad that Justice Sotomayor let the Stay be decided by the full SCOTUS. I think it was really more a political move on her part than anything that has to do with the claims of the State. By turning it over to SCOTUS (knowing full well a stay would probably be granted while Scalia and Thomas take all their underwear to their drycleaners since NO ONE saw THIS coming)

And SCOTUS issued a stay for some very practical reasons. The defense the State of Utah is using is the same one the anti-gays have used in every other case. And in Windsor those arguments were found to be without merit.

Regardless of any claims for 'original intent' or 'will of the people', the fact remains SCOTUS already said the Federal Govt can NOT discriminate with marriage rights on the basis of sexual orientation.

As for "States Rights" let's remember that the over eager overconfident anti-gays ended up making SSM a Federal issue the moment Bill Clinton signed DOMA into law.

And as history has shown, when the Federal Govt. says you have a Federal Constitutional right to something, States can't deny you that right.

“Equality First”

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#14 Jan 12, 2014
DNF wrote:
It's like watching an old looney toons cartoon.
Daffy Duck trying to patch 57 holes in the dike at the same time.
I'm glad that Justice Sotomayor let the Stay be decided by the full SCOTUS. I think it was really more a political move on her part than anything that has to do with the claims of the State. By turning it over to SCOTUS (knowing full well a stay would probably be granted while Scalia and Thomas take all their underwear to their drycleaners since NO ONE saw THIS coming)
And SCOTUS issued a stay for some very practical reasons. The defense the State of Utah is using is the same one the anti-gays have used in every other case. And in Windsor those arguments were found to be without merit.
Regardless of any claims for 'original intent' or 'will of the people', the fact remains SCOTUS already said the Federal Govt can NOT discriminate with marriage rights on the basis of sexual orientation.
As for "States Rights" let's remember that the over eager overconfident anti-gays ended up making SSM a Federal issue the moment Bill Clinton signed DOMA into law.
And as history has shown, when the Federal Govt. says you have a Federal Constitutional right to something, States can't deny you that right.
A lot of gay folks think Clinton betrayed us when he signed DOMA. I was never of that opinion, although his signing it and making it a Federal issue was not on my mind. I thought of it only as an incremental step in a much longer battle. Only recently did I realize that by making it a Federal issue, he was doing us a huge favor.

“What Goes Around, Comes Around”

Since: Mar 07

Kansas City, MO.

#15 Jan 12, 2014
Well........DUH!

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#16 Jan 12, 2014
And?

The first amendment guarantees them the right to hold their bigoted views and to exclude others in accordance with their bigotry. Guess what, Morons (er, mormons), I don't think that there are gay people clamoring to join your bigoted ranks.

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#17 Jan 12, 2014
No one wants to get married in their bigot buildings under a basketball hoop. Sounds like they should hang "no gays allowed" signs on all their doors.
copytech

Salt Lake City, UT

#18 Jan 13, 2014
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
They're not Christians. They always stated they weren't Christians, until just in the recent past, they suddenly reversed their position, and have now started claiming that they are Christians.
They're not. And I do not know of any Christian denomination that says they are Christians.
The Christian sacrament of Baptism is very specific, and there NEVER is or was a "Baptism of the dead" in Christian theology or practice. If you are going to "baptize the dead", you are performing a NON-Christian ceremony.
You need to read your Bible in 1 Corinthians 15:29 it said " 29 Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?
They did it back then in Jesus Christ Church just like Christ's Church does it today.
copytech

Salt Lake City, UT

#19 Jan 13, 2014
DNF wrote:
It's like watching an old looney toons cartoon.
Daffy Duck trying to patch 57 holes in the dike at the same time.
I'm glad that Justice Sotomayor let the Stay be decided by the full SCOTUS. I think it was really more a political move on her part than anything that has to do with the claims of the State. By turning it over to SCOTUS (knowing full well a stay would probably be granted while Scalia and Thomas take all their underwear to their drycleaners since NO ONE saw THIS coming)
And SCOTUS issued a stay for some very practical reasons. The defense the State of Utah is using is the same one the anti-gays have used in every other case. And in Windsor those arguments were found to be without merit.
Regardless of any claims for 'original intent' or 'will of the people', the fact remains SCOTUS already said the Federal Govt can NOT discriminate with marriage rights on the basis of sexual orientation.
As for "States Rights" let's remember that the over eager overconfident anti-gays ended up making SSM a Federal issue the moment Bill Clinton signed DOMA into law.
And as history has shown, when the Federal Govt. says you have a Federal Constitutional right to something, States can't deny you that right.
So then why did the Feds make a Law against a Religion back in the 1850's when the Church was practicing it's Religion isn't that against the 1st Amendment?

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#20 Jan 13, 2014
copytech wrote:
<quoted text>
You need to read your Bible in 1 Corinthians 15:29 it said " 29 Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?
They did it back then in Jesus Christ Church just like Christ's Church does it today.
Baptism against one's will? Without one's consent? Sick stuff.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Former LDS Church lobbyist joins board of LGBT ... 14 hr tongangodz 21
News Clinton, in Mormon pitch, compares Trump to rel... 16 hr tongangodz 42
Mormon Church Getting Money from Casinos - Why ... (Oct '09) Aug 22 Nehi Barowenur 20
News Trump's Mormon Problem Aug 10 Surgit Tempestas 4
News Who says Mormons aren't Christians? (Oct '11) Aug 8 tongangodz 31,997
News Polygamy No Longer a Crime in Utah (Dec '13) Aug 8 Retired SOF 22
News '50 Shades!: The Musical' returns to Sarasota (Nov '13) Aug 5 AIPAC 666 8
More from around the web