But same sex marriage would destroy the institution

[PostmodernProphet]

?

dude...you're losing it

??.....read the post I responded to and try to deny it.....I suppose you'll say you didn't mean anything personal when you said I would object to bi-racial marriage...well, I didn't mean anything personal when I called you a pedophile, either......

 

[PostmodernProphet]

You don't have to be fair or give equal rights. But the gov't (we as a people) do.

you must be a liberal.....you think "government" is something different from "you"......if the government "pays for it" you pay for it.....if the government "has to do it" you have to do it....

 

[DamnYankee]

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.

Wow talk about crawfishing.

 

[DamnYankee]

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. ...

But we're talking about my faith, not necessarily specific to Catholicism.

 

[Damocles]

Wow talk about crawfishing.

Crawfishing means going backwards against what you previously stated, not whatever it is you think it means by this inane comment. The reality is: History directly shows that the laws were passed directly in response to an unpopular minority religion's belief of morality.

While you can keep yourself deliberately ignorant and pretend that nobody suggested anything that might make you pause, the reality still exists and will continue to exist. The only thing we have learned in this thread is that even with overwhelming evidence to the contrary you will continue to believe whatever is convenient to your hope that the laws of this land will always faithfully follow your brand of "morality" without regard to the constitution.

 

[Timshel]

But we're talking about my faith, not necessarily specific to Catholicism.

I only brought up your religion in the hopes of making it relevant and easier for you to understand. But you are confused by bright lights, so...

Unless you are a Mormon that goes to a Catholic church, I do not need to know everything you believe. You either have very different beliefs than Mormons or you picked the wrong church.

You might take communion in your magic underwear, but the point remains... Mormonism and Catholicism are different faiths/religions. I have given you examples and if you don't know this you are not worth trying to educate.

 

[Timshel]

you must be a liberal.....you think "government" is something different from "you"......if the government "pays for it" you pay for it.....if the government "has to do it" you have to do it....

So we have all been forced to bless interracial marriages? We have all been forced not to enslave black people? We have all been forced not to beat up people of different faiths? Heck, we have all been forced to not steal or kill our neighbors, white, black, male or female.

We have not. You confuse negative right and positive rights and so (like a lefty) you believe all supposed rights are the same thing, gifts from the masses. They are not.

The proper rights of the individual are negative rights. You do not need to do anything to support those rights. You simply, are not allowed to violate those rights. No action is required of you, but, yes, you are prohibited from taking action to violate the rights of others.

Another persons right to life does not mean you have to feed, clothe or shelter them. It just means you are not permitted to kill them.

If it is too much to ask that you refrain from violating the rights of your fellow citizens then we have made special rooms available for you where you will be limited in access to your fellow citizens.

 

[Jarod]

If we let the races marry eachother it will change the very meaning of marraige... Who is the government to change what has been the rule for thousands of years... Since the time of Jesus...!

 

[PostmodernProphet]

So we have all been forced to bless interracial marriages? We have all been forced not to enslave black people? We have all been forced not to beat up people of different faiths? Heck, we have all been forced to not steal or kill our neighbors, white, black, male or female.

You seem to have turned things around.....it would actually be that we were forced to ban inter-racial marriage......also, I don't recall times when the government/we were slave owners or beat up people because of their religion....I will concede that the government has been known to steal but debating taxes would be off topic....

Another persons right to life does not mean you have to feed, clothe or shelter them. It just means you are not permitted to kill them.

precisely....the right of a person to engage in a social interaction with another does not mean we need to feed clothe, shelter, or grant pension and insurance benefits for them......

 

[DamnYankee]

Crawfishing means going backwards against what you previously stated, not whatever it is you think it means by this inane comment. The reality is: History directly shows that the laws were passed directly in response to an unpopular minority religion's belief of morality.

While you can keep yourself deliberately ignorant and pretend that nobody suggested anything that might make you pause, the reality still exists and will continue to exist. The only thing we have learned in this thread is that even with overwhelming evidence to the contrary you will continue to believe whatever is convenient to your hope that the laws of this land will always faithfully follow your brand of "morality" without regard to the constitution.

Again, you are arguing that the US based a law on Augustine's writings, and wrote this law specifically targeting the LDS Church.

I've ax'd you several times to cite evidence other than your opinion.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

If we let the races marry eachother it will change the very meaning of marraige... Who is the government to change what has been the rule for thousands of years... Since the time of Jesus...!

the sad thing about debating with liberals is once they've fixed their minds on something irrelevant they stop bothering with trying to examine an issue rationally.....

in this instance they feel they don't need to discuss gay marriage because once upon a time something completely different happened to blacks.....

 

[DamnYankee]

I only brought up your religion in the hopes of making it relevant and easier for you to understand. But you are confused by bright lights, so...

Unless you are a Mormon that goes to a Catholic church, I do not need to know everything you believe. You either have very different beliefs than Mormons or you picked the wrong church.

You might take communion in your magic underwear, but the point remains... Mormonism and Catholicism are different faiths/religions. I have given you examples and if you don't know this you are not worth trying to educate.

I was clearly talking about my Christian Faith and how it has much in common with those I've know who are Mormons, none of which you know anything about in spite of your insistence of attempting to equate them with specific denominations. Keep up the Ad Hominem Abusive though, as I enjoy scoring them as debate points.

 

[Jarod]

the sad thing about debating with liberals is once they've fixed their minds on something irrelevant they stop bothering with trying to examine an issue rationally.....

in this instance they feel they don't need to discuss gay marriage because once upon a time something completely different happened to blacks.....

It is not completly different, it has many parallels...

 

[Damocles]

Again, you are arguing that the US based a law on Augustine's writings, and wrote this law specifically targeting the LDS Church.

I've ax'd you several times to cite evidence other than your opinion.

No, I have proven that the US law was based on the morality of the majority religion and that they were directly created against an unpopular minority religion against the 1st Amendment.

That you:
A. Didn't know the history of your own religion or how that particular moral rule became part of it.
B. Didn't know the history behind the persecution of the LDS church and why the laws against plural marriages became a point of federal "recognition".

Doesn't change what I have shown in this thread.

Laws to support what you call "moral" solely because it is "moral" are not the purview of the government, only radicals would believe that they are supposed to enforce any form of morality on people, let alone one that follows the majority religion's specific code, certainly not "conservatives".

Before making any law, the government should always ask first "Where is the direct victim?" Since you cannot provide even close to a direct victim in this case and never have been able to, this is one that the government should stay the heck out of...

 

[DamnYankee]

No, I have proven that the US law was based on the morality of the majority religion and that they were directly created against an unpopular minority religion against the 1st Amendment.

That you:
A. Didn't know the history of your own religion or how that particular moral rule became part of it.
B. Didn't know the history behind the persecution of the LDS church and why the laws against plural marriages became a point of federal "recognition".

Doesn't change what I have shown in this thread.

Laws to support what you call "moral" solely because it is "moral" are not the purview of the government, only radicals would believe that they are supposed to enforce any form of morality on people, let alone one that follows the majority religion's specific code, certainly not "conservatives".

Before making any law, the government should always ask first "Where is the direct victim?" Since you cannot provide even close to a direct victim in this case and never have been able to, this is one that the government should stay the heck out of...

Continuing your ad-hom by claiming I don't know about history or my own religion will not disguise the fact that you have failed to cite evidence other than your opinion about your previous assertions, no matter how much you wish and hope.

 

[Damocles]

Continuing your ad-hom by claiming I don't know about history or my own religion will not disguise the fact that you have failed to cite evidence other than your opinion about your previous assertions, no matter how much you wish and hope.

It isn't an "Ad hom", it is directly the truth. Although you can no longer claim ignorance truthfully as I gave you the historical period and references so you are now deliberately pretending to be ignorant.

It isn't "hope" it is very real. Sometimes what is popular really is unconstitutional, and those of us who have sworn to protect the constitution and take it seriously will constantly point it out.

 

[DamnYankee]

It isn't an "Ad hom", it is directly the truth. Although you can no longer claim ignorance truthfully as I gave you the historical period and references so you are now deliberately pretending to be ignorant.

It isn't "hope" it is very real. Sometimes what is popular really is unconstitutional, and those of us who have sworn to protect the constitution and take it seriously will constantly point it out.

You accuse me of not knowing history or about my religion, and clearly without cause. That ain't 'truth", and you have been told so, yet continue the claim, so it is an ad-hom.

Stop spinning and cite the evidence as requested.

 

[Damocles]

You accuse me of not knowing history or about my religion, and clearly without cause. That ain't 'truth", and you have been told so, yet continue the claim, so it is an ad-hom.

Stop spinning and cite the evidence as requested.

No, you demonstrated that you didn't know the history, then after I explained it to you, giving reference to the actual laws and orders, you pretended that it wasn't "evidence"...

I simply point out what you have demonstrated here for us today. If it is something that you want to happen you'll ignore the constitution and the limitations that we have set on our government, IMO the very things that made us great. My eyes are wide open, and the reality isn't pretty.

 

[DamnYankee]

No, you demonstrated that you didn't know the history, then after I explained it to you, giving reference to the actual laws and orders, you pretended that it wasn't "evidence"...

I simply point out what you have demonstrated here for us today. If it is something that you want to happen you'll ignore the constitution and the limitations that we have set on our government, IMO the very things that made us great. My eyes are wide open, and the reality isn't pretty.

You claimed that you knew why the laws were written. Citing the laws themselves provides no such evidence of your claim.

 

[Damocles]

You claimed that you knew why the laws were written. Citing the laws themselves provides no such evidence of your claim.

However I gave you quotes from the actual people. It is seriously disingenuous to ignore history to make up your own fantastical representation. These laws were passed specifically against one religion, it was even a plank on a platform of one of the major parties, letters were written (and cited) that specifically mentioned how using the unpopularity of that particular religion they could get them to focus on that rather than other unpopular issues (slavery in particular, that was the D strategy to attempt to defeat Lincoln in that election)...

On and on. It doesn't even take much to research it, it's reality. The laws were passed specifically against the Mormon religion, the platforms of the party and the strategies were set in writing.

Now that ignorance is no longer an excuse, you still pretend that you "know" history of which you clearly show direct and (now) purposeful ignorance.