But same sex marriage would destroy the institution

Southern Man said:
Then you should have no problem citing these statements as evidence supporting your assertion that the US based a law on Augustine's writings, and wrote this law specifically targeting the LDS Church. :)
Click to expand...
Crawfishing. Augustine was the one who wrote the treatises that created the Christian "moral" of one man/one woman marriages. If you were at all educated on your own religion you wouldn't need a Buddhist to help you learn the history of your own religion. Or if you were schooled in history would you need to attempt to excuse yourself from the knowledge because others didn't supply it to you.

1. Missouri's state government (Gov. Lilburn W. Boggs issued it October 27th, 1838) directly created an extermination order for all Mormons in his state (DEFINITELY NOT CONSTITUTIONAL).
2. The Republican Party had as its plank in 1856 to make polygamy illegal, directly stating it was due to Mormon "immorality". They argued that if "popular sovereignty" were allowed to create Slave states that it would ultimately mean that it would also allow Polygamy, which was so invariably unpopular due to the majority religion's stance on it that even the former allies of the LDS church like Stephen Douglas (you'll remember him as the guy who ran against Lincoln for President) had to ultimately discredit them, he called the church itself a "disgusting ulcer", in the hopes he could shore up more votes. The President at the time wrote to him suggesting that if they could create a "anti-Mormon crusade" it would distract people from the Slavery issue and urged him to repudiate them in his run for the Presidency...

You really should learn some history, it will open your eyes.
 
Damocles said:
Crawfishing. Augustine was the one who wrote the treatises that created the Christian "moral" of one man/one woman marriages. If you were at all educated on your own religion you wouldn't need a Buddhist to help you learn the history of your own religion. Or if you were schooled in history would you need to attempt to excuse yourself from the knowledge because others didn't supply it to you.

1. Missouri's state government (Gov. Lilburn W. Boggs issued it October 27th, 1838) directly created an extermination order for all Mormons in his state (DEFINITELY NOT CONSTITUTIONAL).
2. The Republican Party had as its plank in 1856 to make polygamy illegal, directly stating it was due to Mormon "immorality". They argued that if "popular sovereignty" were allowed to create Slave states that it would ultimately mean that it would also allow Polygamy, which was so invariably unpopular due to the majority religion's stance on it that even the former allies of the LDS church like Stephen Douglas (you'll remember him as the guy who ran against Lincoln for President) had to ultimately discredit them, he called the church itself a "disgusting ulcer", in the hopes he could shore up more votes. The President at the time wrote to him suggesting that if they could create a "anti-Mormon crusade" it would distract people from the Slavery issue and urged him to repudiate them in his run for the Presidency...

You really should learn some history, it will open your eyes.
Click to expand...

If you are going to reach him, I am afraid you are going to need more pictures and smaller words. Actually, grunts might be more effective.

Without something more drastic, it is just...

:bdh:
 
RStringfield said:
:rolleyes:

Backtracking?

I am not making any ad-homs either. You claim to be unaware of the differences between Catholics and Mormons. Okay. That is not my problem and I don't care to tutor you. I have no desire to teach you enough so that you may intelligently discuss the topics I am interested in and that were being debated until you highlighted the handicaps you suffer. You are going to need to do your own homework on the basics and I will wait for someone else that is at the necessary level to discuss the issues that interest me.

It's like me trying to help you to develop more bat speed when you claim not to know which end of the bat to hold. You go back to t-ball and when you are done I will be here.

I have not said your ignorance makes your argument wrong (that would be an ad hom). It just makes you ignorant and discussion with you is not likely to be worth my time. I have wasted enough time explaining this already.
Click to expand...
Now a straw man, followed by ad-homs. :)
 
Damocles said:
Crawfishing. Augustine was the one who wrote the treatises that created the Christian "moral" of one man/one woman marriages. If you were at all educated on your own religion you wouldn't need a Buddhist to help you learn the history of your own religion. Or if you were schooled in history would you need to attempt to excuse yourself from the knowledge because others didn't supply it to you.

1. Missouri's state government (Gov. Lilburn W. Boggs issued it October 27th, 1838) directly created an extermination order for all Mormons in his state (DEFINITELY NOT CONSTITUTIONAL).
2. The Republican Party had as its plank in 1856 to make polygamy illegal, directly stating it was due to Mormon "immorality". They argued that if "popular sovereignty" were allowed to create Slave states that it would ultimately mean that it would also allow Polygamy, which was so invariably unpopular due to the majority religion's stance on it that even the former allies of the LDS church like Stephen Douglas (you'll remember him as the guy who ran against Lincoln for President) had to ultimately discredit them, he called the church itself a "disgusting ulcer", in the hopes he could shore up more votes. The President at the time wrote to him suggesting that if they could create a "anti-Mormon crusade" it would distract people from the Slavery issue and urged him to repudiate them in his run for the Presidency...

You really should learn some history, it will open your eyes.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you're being purposely obtuse. I never argued that Augustine didn't teach that polygamy was immoral; I asked that you cite, again, that:
"the US based a law on Augustine's writings, and wrote this law specifically targeting the LDS Church."

So far you have failed to do so. Instead, like Stringfield, you use the logical fallacy of Ad hominem abusive.
 
Southern Man said:
Perhaps you're being purposely obtuse. I never argued that Augustine didn't teach that polygamy was immoral; I asked that you cite, again, that:
"the US based a law on Augustine's writings, and wrote this law specifically targeting the LDS Church."

So far you have failed to do so. Instead, like Stringfield, you use the logical fallacy of Ad hominem abusive.
Click to expand...
Obtuse? The only ignorant stance here is the one that purposefully ignores actual history so you can maintain pretense that the laws weren't even remotely constitutional and were created specifically to maintain the morality of the majority religion and directly against a minority religion. Even so far as to actually slaughter them directly.
 
Southern Man said:
Now a straw man, followed by ad-homs. :)
Click to expand...

A straw man? You were asking me to tell you what beliefs you did not share with Mormons. I actually went to the bother of giving you examples which you ignored, as usual. I mean, honestly dude, it's a stupid fucking question. What hoops do you expect to jump through to prove something that is common knowledge, i.e., Mormons and Catholics have different beliefs.

Further, you have pretended that the laws and customs surrounding marriage were not influenced by religious doctrine and were based on what? Some secular principle held by society? Again, that is absurd. If you don't know this then go crack a history book. Don't waste my time asking me to answer it when you will simply ignore it anyway, as you did Damo.

The funny thing is the anti-gay marriage argument is all about demanding that the customs set down by dead people be kept alive. Yet you are completely ignorant of how those customs were formed?

The truth is, I don't believe your stupid act. It's a just way to maintain your logical evasions until you can find some escape route. You never do anything but go in circles and it is getting boring. I will be damned if I am going to follow you around answering one idiotic question after the next (as well as repeating answers that you ignore), when I don't believe you are sincere.

Again, this is not an ad-hom. Your shortcomings have nothing to do with your arguments. They fail on their own.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
do you extend the same option to all of us?.....you can call it gay marriage but none of the rest of us need do so?......
Click to expand...

That works fine for me. As long as they get the same benefits that all married couples get, you can call it Joined Unigendered Couples.
 
RStringfield said:
I did not say you could not support it. But one can support the opposite view, just as well. Opinions on the bible are like as....
Click to expand...

Actually there is no systematic biblical support of polygamy. Smith was his own self-made prophet, meaning his views of polygamy were "extra-biblical".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top